Pedobaptist  and  campbelUte 
immersions 


||$kk|jH5t  anti  ©aiujiblHIi 


IMMEKSIONS: 


BEING  A  REVIEW  OF  THE  ARGUMENTS  OP    "  DOC- 
TORS" WALLER,  FULLER,  JOHNSON,  WAY- 
LAND,  BROADUS,  AND  OTHERS. 


BY  A.  C.  DAYTON. 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTORY  ESSAY, 

BY  J.  K.  GRATES. 


NASHVILLE: 

SOUTH-WESTERN  PUBLISHING  HOUSE, 

GRAVES,  MARKS  &  CO. 

NEW  YORK: 
SHELDON,  BLAKEMAN  &  CO. 

1858. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Since  it  was  at  my  solicitation  that  the  author 
consented  that  his  reviews  of  Waller,  Johnson,  and 
Fuller,  originally  published  in  the  Southern  Baptist 
Review,  might  be  given  to  the  public  in  the  form  of 
a  "  httle  book,"  it  seems  but  proper  for  me  to  intro- 
duce it  to  the  rehgious  public. 

I  do  this,  not  only  cheerfully,  but  wiih  a  degree  of 
pleasure  seldom  experienced  in  performmg  a  similar 
office,  for  several  reasons: 

1.  The  question  is  a  most  important  one — vital  to 
the  peace,  prosperity,  and  perpetuity  of  the  Baptist 
denomination. 

2.  The  denomination  is  divided  in  sentiment.  By 
far  the  largest  majority — perhaps  nine-tenths  of  the 
churches  in  the  North — receive  the  immersions  and 
ordinations  of  Pedobaptists  and  Campbellites  as  valid, 
and  regard  their  societies  as  evangelical,  i.  e.,  scrip- 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

» 
tural  churches.     From  the  North,  the  practice  has 

been  introduced  into  the  South,  and  it  was  supposed 
that  a  few  years  since,  before  so  bold  a  stand  was 
made  against  it  by  several  leading  papers,  a  majorit}^ 
of  the  churches  in  some  States  would  recognize  such 
immersions  as  valid  baptisms,  and,  perhaps,  the  ma- 
jority of  the  churches  in  Kentucky,  Missouri,  and 
parts  of  South  Carolina  would  to-day' receive  such 
acts  as  baptism.*  I  confidently  believe  that  this 
work  will  be  influential  in  bringing  about  a  unanimi- 
ty of  sentiment  touching  this  subject. 

3.  The  question  is  most  widely  agitated,  and  the 
denominational  mind  is  greatly  excited  upon  the  sub- 
ject, especially  in  the  South,  and  this  must  be  regar- 
ded as  a  favorable  time  to  discuss  the  question  in  all 
its  bearings,  and  establish  those  principles,  if  possible, 
and  apply  those  scriptures  that  must  forever  put  the 
question  at  rest,  before  our  churches  become  more 
entangled  and  confused. 

4.  We  commend  this  work  because  we  believe  that 
the  author  has  most  conclusively  shown  that  the 
Scriptures  clearly  forbid  any  body  but  a  scripturally 
organized  church  to  authorize  baptism,  and  then  by 
an  administrator  connected  with  a  scriptural  church. 
Will  not  every  Baptist  bow  to  the  authority  of  God's 
Word? 


♦The  practice  prevails  to  a  larger  extent  in  those  States 
whose  Baptist  papers  and  leading  men  advocate  the  validity 
of  such  baptisms. 


INTRODUCTION.  V 

5.  He  has  shown  that  all  the  examples  of  bap- 
tism in  the  Scriptures  are  opposed  to  the  administra- 
tion of  the  ordinance  by  those  neither  baptized  nor 
members  of  a  scriptural  church. 

6.  We  commend  it  to  all  other  denominations  be" 
cause  from  it  they  can  learn  how  they  are  regarded 
by  all  consistent  Baptists,  and  how  rigidly  consistent 
is  the  practice  of  all  those  Baptists  who  reject  Pedo- 
baptist  and  Campbellite  baptisms,  whether  the  ac- 
tion was  sprinkling  or  immersion,  as  well  as  in  deny- 
ing these  societies  to  be  evangelical  or  scriptural 
churches. 

7.  We  introduce  it  with  the  greater  pleasure  be- 
cause we  verily  believe  that  it  will  prove  the  end  of 
all  controversy  upon  this  subject,  to  every  candid  and 
true  principled  Baptist.  If  the  end  of  this  contro- 
versy cannot  be  looked  for  in  these  pages,  where  can 
•we  reasonably  look  for  it?  The  ablest  advocates  of 
the  validity  of  such  immersions,  have  here  put  forth 
their  strongest  arguments,  and  between  this  array  of 
doctors  of  divinity  every  possible  argument  is  urged 
that  any  other  advocate  can  consider  at  all  relevant. 
Surely  the  advocates  of  such  baptism  can  well  afford 
to  trust  their  cause  in  such  hands.  And,  I  am  con- 
fident, that  all  who  oppose  such  baptisms  are  per- 
fectly willing  to  intrust  the  advocacy  of  their  cause 
in  the  hands  of  our  author.  If  this  question  is  not 
settled  in  the  minds  of  all  Baptists  by  this  work,  we 
may  not  expect  that  it  will  be  settled  in  our  day. 

1* 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

There  are  two  points  that  might  be  urged  with 
great  force  upon  all  Baptists,  of  which  the  author  has 
not  seen  fit  to  avail  himself. 

The  recognitions  of  such  baptisms  as  valid,  forces 
all  Baptists  logically  and  irresistably  into  open  com- 
munion, and  more,  to  the  admission  that  the  existence 
of  Baptist  churches  is  not  necessary ! 

We  reject  the  premises  from  which  such  a  conclu- 
sion follows,  because  the  conclusion  is  an  untruth — 
an  absurdity  to  every  Baptist  who  holds  the  avowed 
principles  of  our  denomination.  To  every  true  Baptist, 
open  communion  is  unscriptural  and  unwise.  This 
has  been  satisfactorily  demonstrated  to  him  by  the 
Scriptures  and  the  English  experiment.  It  is  axioma- 
tic to  every  real  Baptist,  and,  therefore,  to  him  this 
argument  is  conclusive,  for  he  cannot  embrace  a  con- 
clusion that  is  contradictory  to  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  his  faith. 

Let  me  examine  this  question  briefly.  We  take  it 
for  granted  that  every  Baptist  will  admit,  "That  the 
proper  administrator,  as  well  as  the  proper  subject 
of  baptism  is  clearly  designated  by  the  Scriptures, 
for,  he  is  an  essential  part  of  the  ordinance  of  chris- 
tian baptism,  since  baptism  involves  the  ideas  of  ad- 
ministratovy  subject,  action  and  design,  and  therefore, 
it  is  supposed  that  if  any  one  of  these  is  described 
and  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  we  must  suppose  that 
each  one  of  them  is  clearly  indicated  and  enjoined. 
And  then  again,  Baptism  is  a  positive  law  and  since 


INTRODUCTION.  Vll 

no  positive  law  is  left  to  be  inferred,  certainly  no 
essential  part  of  a  positive  law  can  be  supposed  to 
be  left  to  be  inferred,  but  must  be  clearly  indicated.  If 
Baptists  deny  this,  they  must  repudiate  one  of  their 
most  cherished  and  distinguishing  principles,  i,  e.^ 
that  the  Scriptures  are  a  perfect  rule  of  practice  as 
well  as  faith. 

Baptists,  then,  must  admit  that  this  question  is 
settled  bv  the  Scriptures.  If  this  is  granted,  all 
Baptists  must  admit  that  christian  baptism  can  only 
be  Scripturally  administered  by  a  duly  baptized  ad- 
ministrator who  is  a  member  of  a  true  visible  Church 
and  acting  under  the  authority  of  such  Church.  If 
Baptists  recognize  the  immersions  of  Pedobaptists 
and  Campbellite  Societies,  they  thereby  recognize 
such  Societies  as  truly  Scriptural  and  Evangelical 
Churches  ? 

But  to  admit  this  they  must  admit  that  the 
Scriptures  authorize  several  radically  diverse  forms 
of  Church  GoffernmeLt,  and  membership,  and 
ordinances,  and  faith,  and  orders  in  the  ministry. 
And  since  a  Church  can  be  no  more  than.  Evangeli- 
cal, or  Scriptural,  and  not  less,  and  still  be  Scriptural, 
it  follows  that  Baptist  churches,  being  only  Scrip- 
tural, are  only  equal  to  Pedobaptists  and  Campbel- 
lite Societies,  since  things  equal  to  the  same  thing  are 
equal  to  one  another. 

If  then  such  Societies  are  Scripturally  equal  to 
Baptists     Churches,  why   may   they  not   commune 


VIU  .  INTRODUCTION. 

with  each  other  as  Baptist  Churches  do?  And  what 
is  the  necessity  for  Baptist  Churches  at  all  ?  Since, 
it  is  sufficient  for  any  christian  to  belong  to  a  Scrip- 
tural or  Evangelical  Church? 

We  see  here  that  the  logical  and  irresistible  con- 
clusion that  follows  from  the  admission  that  the 
immersions  of  such  Societies  are  valid,  not  only 
forces  Baptists  into  open  communion,  but  to  concede 
that  were  all  their  Churches  annihilated  from  the  face 
of  the  whole  earth,  still  there  would  exist  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands  of  Scriptural  churches,  amply 
sufficient  for  the  wants  of  the  world. 

The  Baptist  who  can  embrace  these  conclusions  is 
not  a  Baptist  in  principle,  and  renounces  not  only  the 
faith  of  the  Baptists,  but  the  plain  teachings  of  inspira- 
tion. 

2.  The  second  fact  which  must  be  influential  with 
Baptists  is,  by  receiving  such  immersions  for  valid 
baptism  they  would  repudiate  the  universal  practice 
of  their  ancestors  for  more  thani<;welve  centuries 
past. 

Does  not  every  Baptist  glory  in  the  fact  that  he  is 
a  descendant  of  the  martyred  Anabaptists,  with  whose 
blood,  the  woman  robed  in  scarlet  was  drunken  for 
so  many  centuries  before  Luther,  or  Calvin,  or  any 
one  of  the  Reformers  was  born  ?  The  Baptist  who 
is  not  proud  of  his  descent,  from  that  martyred  host 
who  are  resting  under  the  throne  until  the  day  of 
God's  vengeance  and  their  glorification  shall  come, 


INTRODUCTION.  IX 

either  is  ignorant  of  the  history  of  Baptists,  or  un- 
worthy of  being  numbered  among  them.  Why  were 
they  called  Anabaptists  ?  Because  they  baptized  all 
who  came  to  them  from  the  Catholic  party,  or  any 
sect,  which  they  regarded  as  heretical.  Why  did 
they  reject  the  immersions — for  immersion  was  the 
prevailing  practice  for  more  than  1300  years,  says 
Wall  himself — of  the  Catholics  and  of  heretical  sects? 
Because,  they  believed  that  a  corrupt  or  unscriptural 
Church  could  not  give  valid  baptism. 

This  fact  is  patent  upon  the  face  of  history.  We 
can  learn  from  Augustine,  why  the  Donatists  of  the 
5th  century  re-baptized  those  who  came  to  them  from 
the  Catholic  party.  "You  Donatists  say  they  are 
baptized  in  an  impure  church  by  heretics.* 

The  Paulicians  were  hooted  at  in  Councils  for  re- 
baptizing  in  private  houses  (says  Robinson)  and  hol- 
ding conventicles,  and  for  calling  the  established 
Church  a  worldly  community,  and  re-baptizing  such 
as  joined  their  churches,  f 

The  Novatianists  were  banished  and  slain  by  the 
Catholics  because  they  re -baptized  those  who  came 
into  their  communion.  *'  In  the  fourth  Laterau  coun- 
cil, canons  were  made  to  banish  them  as  Heretics,  and 
these  canons  were  supported  by  an  edict,  A.  D.,  413, 
issued  by  the  Emperors  Theodosius  and  Horonius,  de- 
claring that  all  persons  re-baptized,  and  the  re-bap - 

*  Orchard,  page  95.  f  Robinson  Resh.,  page  92. 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

tizers,  should  be  punished  with  death.  Accordingly 
Albanus,  a  zealous  minister,  with  others,  was  pun- 
ished with  death  for  re-baptizing."* 

The  Waldenses,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Rei- 
ner, a  messenger  sent  by  the  King  of  France  to  learn 
their  doctrines  and  practices,  expressly  taught  **that 
a  man  is  then  first  baptized,  that  is  rightly  baptized 
when  he  is  received  into  their  Society. f 

Of  the  Albigenses  and  others,  about  the  year  500, 
we  read  that  they  held  the  Catholic  community  not 
to  be  a  church  of  Christ.  They  therefore  rebaptized 
such  as  had  been  baptized  in  that  community,  before 
they  admitted  them  to  their  fellowship.  For  this 
conduct  they  were  called  Anabaptists.]; 

The  Beghards  or  Picards,  according  to    Dr.  Wall, ' 
required  of  every  one  who  came  over  to  their  church, 
to  be  baptized  anew  in  mere  water. § 

It  was  charged  against  the  Baptists  by  the  famous 
Roman  Catholic  Bishop  Bossuet,  that  "This  re-bapti- 
zing is  an  open  declaration  that  in  the  opinion  of  the 
brethren,  the  Catholic  Church  has  lost  baptism. || 

That  the  Baptists  of  Germany,  even  in  Luther's  day, 
were  like  their  predecessors,  the  Waldenses  and  Al- 
bigenses, Paulicians,  Novatianists   and  Donatists,  is 

*  Orchard,  page  61— Bap,  Mag.  256, 

.  t  Alex.  Pred,  ch.  c.  20,  p.  190,  quoted  by  Orchard,  p.  283, 
X  Orchard,  page  167. 

§  History  Infant  Baptism,  qaoted  by  Orchard,  page  329. 
II  Rob.  History  of  Bap.,  p.  463. 


INTRODUCTION.  XI 

evident  from  the  fact,  that  **  He  persecuted  them  un- 
der the  name  of  re-dippers,  re-baptizers,  or  Anabap- 
tists."* 

The  very  term  by  which  Cardinal  Hosius  designates 
our  Churches,  establishes  our  position,  when  he  says, 
*•  If  the  truth  of  a  religion  were  to  be  judged  by  the 
readiness  and  cheerfulness  which  a  man  of  any  sect 
shows  in  sufifering,  then  the  opinions  and  persuations 
of  no  sect  can  be  truer  or  surer  than  those  of  the 
Anabaptists,  (that  is,  the  re-baptizers,)  since  there 
have  been  none  for  these  1,200  years  past  that  have 
been  more  generally  punished."  This  shows  that 
they  had  always  been  accustomed  to  baptize  again, 
or  rather  truly  to  baptize  those  who  come  to  them 
from  other  communions. 

That  they  rejected  not  only  Roman  Catholic  but 
also  Protestant  baptisms,  is  evident  from  the  testi- 
mony of  Bullinger.     He  says  : 

**  The  Anabaptists  think  themselves  to  be  the  only 
true  Church  of  Christ,  and  acceptable  to  God ;  and 
teach  that  they  who  by  baptism  are  received  into 
their  churches,  ought  not  to  have  any  communion 
[fellowship]  with  [those  called]  evangelical,  or  any 
other,  whatsoever,  for  that  our  [i.  e.,  evangelical, 
protestant,  or  reformed]  churches  are  not  true 
churches  any  more  than  the  churches  of  the  Papists.** 

The  position  that  we  take,  in  rejecting  such  im- 
mersions, is  identical  with  that  maintained  by  our 

*  Rob.  History  of  Bap.,  540. 


XU  INTRODUCTION. 

ancestors  in  the  face  of  every  fearful  form  of  death. 
Will  the  Baptists  of  America  repudiate  it?  But, 
•what  should  be  far  more  influential,  will  the  Baptists 
of  to-day  reject  the  Bible  as  the  -perfect  and  only  rule 
of  practice,  and  resort  to  special  legislation  to  legal- 
ize confessedly  informal  acts  ?  Did  not  the  only  Law- 
giver of  his  Church  see  all  the  circumstances  by  which 
the  Church  would  be  surrounded  ?  Did  he  not  see 
the  existence  of  these  **  irregular  christian  churches," 
and  their  informal  acts  ?  If  He  provided  no  law  to 
legalize  them,  will  a  Baptist  church  do  it? 

J.  R.  G. 

Nashville,  January,  1858. 


DIVERSE    OPINIONS.  13 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

"WHO    SHALL    DECIDE    WHEN    DOCTORS    DIFFER?" 

And  what  if  it  should  chance  that  for  the  most 
part  the  doctors  are  agreed?  would  it  not  be  the  very- 
height  of  rashness  and  egotism  for  a  plain  and  un- 
learned man  to  differ  from  them  all,  and  even  go  so 
far  as  to  fancy  that  he  might  he  able,  by  the  mere 
force  of  simple  truth,  to  set  at  rest  forever  a  ques- 
tion which  had  long  disturbed  the  minds  of  those 
who  thought  about  it,  and  settles  it,  too,  upon  a  posi- 
tion directly  the  reverse  of  that,  for  which  the  doctors 
had  contended  ? 

It  certainly  would  seem  so.  But  then  our  case  is 
not  quite  so  bad  as  this.  Here  is  a  question — a  seri- 
ous and  practical  question  of  official  duty  to  the 
churches  of  Christ.  One  upon  which  almost  every 
church  is  likely,  sooner  or  later,  to  be  called  on  to  take 
decisive  action.  It  is  whether  a  person  who  has  been 
immersed  upon  profession  of  his  faith,  by  a  Pedo- 
baptist  minister,  acting  in  behalf  of  a  Pedobaptist 
church,  and  who  thereafter  shall  apply  for  admission 
as  a  member  of  a  Baptist  church,  shall  by  that 
church  be  regarded  as  having  been  truly  baptized, 
or  not  baptized  at  all?  If  he  has  been  baptized,  the 
ordinance  must  not  be  repeated  ;  for  Christ  requires 

2 


14  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

but  one  baptism.  If  7ioi  baptized,  the  ordinance 
must  be  administered,  for  Christ  requires  that  every 
member  of  his  church  shall  have  been  baptized. 
Here,  then,  is  the  point  which  the  churcli  must  de- 
termine: Was  that  immersion  a  true  baptism,  accor- 
ding to  the  Scriptures,  or  was  it  not  ?  Upon  her  de- 
cision of  this  question  her  action  in  regard  to  his 
reception  will  depend. 

That  the  question  is  one  of  great  practical  impor- 
tance, and  that  it  has  been  so  regarded  by  the 
churches,  is  evinced  by  the  discussion  which  it  has 
provoked.  That  it  is  exceedingly  desirable  that  it 
should,  if  possible,  be  so  answered,  once  for  all,  as 
to  secure  uniformity  of  action  among  all  churches, 
no  one  will  doubt.  But  many  will  doubt  whether  this 
can  ever  be  done.  That  very  great  diversity  of 
opinion  does  exist,  will  be  seen  by  the  following  let- 
ters. The  majority  of  the  "Doctors,"  so  far  as  we 
have  been  able  to  gather  their  opinions,  are  either 
undecided,  or  else  believe  that  the  churches  should 
regard  such  persons  as  baptized.  Were  we  to  be 
decided  by  the  influence  of  great  names,  we  should 
probably  ourselves  lean  to  that  opinion.  But  we 
long  since  have  learned  to  take  no  teaching  in  regard 
to  religion,  of  any  man,  however  great  and  good, 
and  learned,  as  certainly  true,  until  we  had  ourselves 
carefully  tested  it  by  the  word  of  God.  The  Bere- 
ans  were  not  praised  because  they  implicitly  believed 
without  examination  the  teachings,  even  of  an  apostle, 
but  because  they  *' searched  the  Scriptures  daily 
whether  these  things  were  so."  When,  therefore,  my 
attention  was  first  called  to  this  subject,  by  a  letter 
from  a  brother  beloved,  in  South  Carolina,  enclosing 
a  copy  of  the  published  letter  of  Elder  Fuller,  of 
Baltimore,  with  a  request  that  I  would  review  it,  I 


DIVERSE    OPINIONS.  15 

carried  it  to  the  Bible,  and  by  its  teacliiDgs  endeavor- 
ed to  ascertain  what  was  the  truth  concerning  it.  So 
ignorant  was  I,  that  I  did  not  know  but  that  it  was  a 
neio  question,  for  the  first  time  presented  to  the  consi- 
deration of  the  churches.  To  me  the  teachings  of  the 
Word  appeared  so  plain,  that  it  was  a  matter  of  won- 
der that  even  one  had  come  to  what  appeared  so 
strange  and  unscriptural  a  conclusion. 

I  afterwards  learned,  however,  that  so  faiv  from 
being  a  new  question,  it  was  one  which  had,  for  a  long 
time,  distracted  and  rent  oui  Zion  ;  that  it  had  been, 
again  and  again,  the  object  of  earnest,  and  sometimes 
of  almost  angry  contention  ;  that  Elder  Fuller,  so  far 
from  standing  alone,  was  sustained  by  the  opinions 
of  such  "Doctors"  as  Curtis  and  Johnson,  Wayland 
and  Waller,  and  that  there  were  many  who  believed 
that  it  had  been  the  uniform  practice  of  the  denomi- 
nation in  all  times  to  receive  immersions  so  adminis- 
tered as  valid  baptism.  Such  a  discovery,  made 
after  my  review  of  Elder  Fuller's  letter  had  been 
written  and  published  to  the  world,  might  well  have 
given  pause  to  one  much  better  qualified  than  I  to 
conduct  such  a  discussion.  It  seemed  more  likely 
that  I  should  be  in  the  wrong  than  that  so  many,  so 
wise,  so  good,  so  learned  men  should  have  been  mis- 
taken. It  surely  called  for  a  re- investigation  upon 
my  part  of  the  grounds  upon  which  I  had  so  hastily 
ventured  an  opinion. 

That  re-examination  has  been  made.  I  have  en- 
deavored carefully  to  study  the  subject  in  all  its  bear- 
ings. The  published  opinions  of  all  the  "Doctors," 
so  far  as  I  could  find  them,  have  been  collected  and 
compared,  analyzed  and  tried  by  the  teachings  of 
God's  Word. 

The  best  and  strongest  arguments  which  they  have 


16  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

made  are  here  presented  by  themselves.  They  have 
all  the  advantage  which  talents  and  learning  could 
give  them.  What  these  **  Doctors"  have  not  done 
for  the  defense  of  these  opinions  we  take  for  granted 
cannot  be  done.  They  are  to  this  cause  what  Hector 
was  to  Troy.  If  any  could  defend  th^ir  positions 
successfully  they  were  the  men.  If  Fuller  and  Way- 
land,  if  Johnson  and  Waller,  cannot  make  good  the 
point,  which  they  contend  for,  others  need  hardly 
make  the  attempt.  Upon  that  side,  we  suppose,  we 
have  the  end  of  the  strife.  No  new  arguments  are 
likely  to  be  presented — or  if  there  should  be,  the 
gleaner  on  the  field  which  such  men  have  reaped,  will 
not  be  likely  to  gather  any  thing  of  equal  value  to  that 
which  they  have  already  brought  in.  If,  therefore, 
we  have  succeeded  in  showing  that  they  have  failed, 
utterly  failed,  to  establish  their  position,  may  we  not 
hope  that  this  will  decide  the  controversy  at  once  and 
forever.  Not  because  the  talent  and  the  learning 
are  not  theirs,  but  simply  because  the  truth  is  ours. 
Whether  this  hope  be  the  mere  suggestion  of  egotism, 
or  whether  it  have  a  good  foundation  in  the  nature 
of  the  reasonings  presented,  the  reader  must  de- 
cide. 

As  neither  of  these  articles,  nor  our  review  of 
them  was  originally  intended  for  publication  in  this 
form  there  may  be  repetitions  of  the  same  thoughts, 
and  possibly  of  the  same  language.  We  trust  the 
reader  will  excuse  this  upon  the  ground,  that  to  make 
it  otherwise  would  mutilate  the  argument  which  was 
designed  to  be  in  each  case  a  mere  reply  to  that  pre- 
sented on  the  other  side.  The  object  of  the  reviewer 
in  each  case  was  not  so  much  to  discuss  the  whole  sub- 
ject in  all  its  bearings  as  to  meet  that  peculiar  phase 
of  it  which    had  been  put  forward   by   the   author 


DIVERSE   OPINIONS.  17 

■whose  article  was  the  subject  of  examination.  And 
it  will  be  observed  that  in  each  case  the  materials 
for  our  argument  in  reply  have,  to  a  great  extent, 
been  drawn  from  the  author  himself  to  whom  we 
were  replying.  This  plan,  though  probably  by  no 
means  the  best  mode  of  discussing  the  question  in  a 
book  which  should  at  once  embrace  the  whole  sub- 
ject, WKS  thought  to  be  the  most  effective  and  prop- 
er for  a  review  in  which  each  article  reviewed  stood 
upon  its  individual  merits,  and  was  in  part,  at  least, 
sustained  by  the  previously  acquired  and  well  de- 
served reputation  of  the  autlior  of  it. 

Of  the  opinions  and  arguments  here  collected  in 
favor  of  the  reception  of  Pedobaptist  immersions  as 
true  and  genuine  christian  baptism,  those  of  Elder 
Waller  were  first  published,  and  we  have  thought 
best  to  place  them  first  in  order  in  the  body  of  this 
work.  The  reader  will  perceive  that  he  is  much  less 
confident  than  "Doctor  Wayland,"  whose  sentiments 
were  published  in  The  Western  Baptist  Review,  vol. 
iv.  p.  31. 

Says  Wayland : 

"I  have  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  in  regard  to 
the  question  of  which  you  write.  The  only  com- 
mand is,  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  is,  as  I  suppose, 
in  baptism  (that  is  immersion)  to  profess  to  submit 
ourselves  in  all  things  to  God.  It  is  the  outward 
manifestation  of  what  we  have  done  before,  in  the  re- 
cesses of  a  contrite  heart.  This  is  the  whole  of  the 
command.  There  is  no  direction  given  beyond,  nor 
have  we  a  right,  to  make  any.  It  is  convenient,  as  a 
matter  of  church  order,  that  there  should  be  some 
general  rule,  and  that  this  rite  be  administered  by  a 

2* 


18  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

clergyman,  and  it  would  be  naturally  performed  by 
one  who  had  been  himself  baptized  by  immersion. 
But  if  these  things  be  absent,  from  necessity  or  ig- 
norance, they  alter  not  the  fact,  that  the  person  who 
has  been  immersed  on  profession  of  faith,  is,  as  I  un- 
derstand it,  a  baptized  believer.  This  is  a  very  com- 
mon case  with  us  in  this  city.  Congregationalists, 
Episcopalians  and  Methodists  here  quite  frequently 
baptize  persons  on  profession  of  their  faith.  We 
consider  them  as  baptized  believers,  and  when  they 
request  it,  admit  them  upon  a  simple  relation  of  their 
experience.  Indeed,  were  not  this  admitted,  I  know 
not  to  what  absurdities  we  should  be  reduced.  If 
the  obedience  to  Christ  depends  upon  the  ordinance 
being  administered  by  a  regularly  baptized  adminis- 
trator, where  are  we  to  stop,  and  how  shall  we  know 
who  is  regularly  baptized,  or  who  has  obeyed  Christ. 
All  this  looks  to  me  absolutely  trivial,  and  wholly 
aside  from  the  principle  which,  as  Protestants  and 
Baptists,  we  have  always  considered  essential  to 
Christian  liberty.  It  seems  to  me  like  assuming  Pu- 
seyism  under  another  name,  or  in  fact  going  back  to 
the  elements  of  the  Catholic  church.  Such  are  my 
views.  How  they  meet  the  views  of  others,  I  know 
not,  but  to  me  these  principles  of  Christian  freedom 
are  above  all  price.  It  is  time  that  we,  above  all 
others,  should  "walk  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ 
has  made  us  free,  and  not  be  entangled  with  any 
yoke  of  bondage.'* 

On  the  same  page  we  find  the  opinion  of  "Doctor 
Johnson,"  of  S.  C,  who  seems  scarcely  less  confident 
than  the  other.     It  is  as  follows  : 

"  I  have  carefully  examined  the  New  Testament  in 


DIVERSE    OnisIONS.  19 

reference  to  the  manner  in  which  the  preacher  of  the 
gospel  is  to  be  brought  into  the  office,  and  the  near- 
est approach  to  it  is  found  in  1st  Cor.  14th  chapter. 
The  brethren  of  a  religious  society  should  exercise 
their  respective  gifts  in  the  presence  of  the  body,  and 
then  the  gifts  will  be  apparent.  Those  who  are  bles- 
sed with  an  aptitude  to  teach  will  show  it,  and  its  re- 
cognition by  the  body  is  the  authority  to  preach  ;  and 
whoever  is  authorized  to  preach,  is  authorized  to  bap- 
tize— the  latter  being  the  minor  work.  I  therefore 
receive  those  who  are  recognized  as  preachers  by 
Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Methodists,  and  all  or- 
thodox bodies  of  believers,  as  preachers  of  the  gos- 
pel, and  receiving  them  in  this  relation,  I  receive  them 
as  baptizers;  and  when  the  ordinance  is  administer- 
ed by  any  of  them  to  one  who  professes  faith  in  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  I  receive  it  as  valid." 

The  reader  will  observe  that  he  regards  all  "reli- 
gious  societies'^  as  churches,  and  all  equally  author- 
ized to  confer  authority  to  preach  and  to  baptize.  As 
we  are  informed  that  he  is  the  same  with  *'  W.,'* 
wliose  arguments  we  have  examined  at  large  in  an- 
other place,  we  will  not  comment  on  that  strange  po- 
bition  here. 

Rev.  D.  Bythewood  says: 

"  I  have  always  thought  the  "Beaufort  church  right 
in  leaving  the  question  to  the  conscif-nce  of  the  can- 
didate. I  could  never  see  any  reasuu  from  the  Bible 
for  requiring  re-baptism.  I  remember,  rr.any  years 
ago,  the  question  was  proposed  to  an  Association  in 
England,  which  decided  that  the  want  of  baptism  in 
the  administrator  did  not  invalidate  the  act  to  the 
person  baptized." 


20  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Lathrop  thus  spealcs  in  behalf  of 
himself  and  the  leading  ministers  of  N.  York  : 

"So  far  as  it  has  been  in  my  power,  I  have  ascer- 
tained the  views  of  leading  brethren  in  this  city. 
Brethren  in  this  quarter  are  pretty  generally  agreed 
on  this  point.  Perhaps  nine  out  of  ten  of  our  min- 
istering brethren  regard  baptism  in  the  case  proposed 
as  valid.  Their  reasons  are  as  follows :  The  indivi- 
dual was  immersed  in  good  faith,  viz  :  had  repented 
of  sin,  believed  in  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  and  on  looking 
into  ihe  Bible,  saw  that  the  first  thing  afterwards  lo 
be  done,  was  to  be  baptized,  and  "arose  and  was  bap- 
tized. 

"But  the  administrator,  you  think,  and  so  do  I,  was 
not  qualified,  that  is,  who  is  not  himself  a  baptized 
man.  The  question  arises — Is  it  essential  to  the  valid- 
ity of  baptism  that  the  administrator  shall  be  in  all 
respects  qualified?  It  is  always  desirable,  but  is  it  es- 
sentialt  It  is  thought  not.  What  in  an  administrator 
is  a  higher  quali6cation  than  piety  ?  Yet  how  many 
unholy,  unconverted  Baptist  ministers,  as  we  have 
reason  to  fear,  have  administered  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  to  true  converts.  When,  afterwards,  such 
men  have  apostatized,  no  one  has  supposed  that  all 
whom  the  apostate  (unqualified  as  he  was)  had  bap- 
tized, should  be  re-immersed.  If  in  good  faith  and 
to  answer  a  good  conscience,  the  individuals  supposed 
have  been  baptized,  they  have  discharged  their  du- 
ty. The  administrator  must  settle  his  account  with 
God 

"The  case,  I  admit,  is  a  somewhat  difficult  one, 
from  the  fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  that 
bears  directly  on  the  point.  We  can  be  guided  only 
by  general  principles,  and  a  reference  to  consequen- 


DIVERSE   OPINIONS.  21 

ces.  I  confess,  that  in  looking  over  tlie  whole  mat- 
ter, I  am  inclined  to  the  opinion,  that  to  re-immerse 
under  the  circumstances  mentioned,  would  be  to  es- 
tablish a  worse  precedent  than  to  pursue  the  contra- 
ry course.'* 

'•Doctor"  Curtis,  of  S.  C,  says  : 

**  The  result  at  which  I  have  for  a  length  of  time 
arrived,  is  quite  similar  to  that  to  which  you  appear 
to  have  come.  The  immersion  of  unbaptized  parties 
received  at  the  time  by  the  baptized  in  good  faith, 
and  as  the  counsel  of  God,  are  irregular,  but  not  in- 
valid— undesirable — not  to  be  encouraged — palpably 
inconsistent  on  the  part  of  the  administrator — but,  as 
I  have  been  taught,  not  requiring  to  be  repeated.  In 
special  cases,  and  where  a  scrupulous  conscience  in 
the  subject  urged  the  repetition,  I  should  not  perhf^ps 
be  scrupulous  about  repeating  it.  But  I  am  clear  that 
this  is  not  required." 

Benedict,  the  Historian,  (after  mentioning  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Richmond  Association,  that  re-baptism  is 
to  be  required,)  says: 

"As  persons  are  frequently  applying  for  admission 
into  Baptist  Churches,  who  have  been  immersed  by 
Methodist  and  Congregational  ministers,  this  ques- 
tion has,  within  a  few  years  past,  been  often  pro- 
posed, and  most  Associations  have  decided  different- 
ly from  this.  All  agree  that  it  is  an  unadvisable 
measure,  for  a  person  to  apply  to  unbaptized  ministers 
to  lead  them  into  the  water  ;  but  after  they  have 
been  properly  immersed  on  a  profession  of  their  faith 
it  is  generally  thought  that  it  would  be  improper  to 


22  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

immerse  them  a  second  time.  It  is  difficult  to  con- 
ceive why  they  would  not,  in  this  case,  come  under 
the  denomination  of  Anabaptists." — (  Vol.  IL,  pp. 
472-3.) 

But  now,  lest  it  be  thought  that  all  the  "Doctors" 
and  great  men  of  the  denomination  agree  substan- 
tially with  these,  we  will  subjoin  a  few  opinions  on 
the  other  side.  **  Doctor  Manly,"  in  1848,  writes  as 
follows : 

**  About  the  question  of  re-baptizing,  I  must  say  I 
have  been  greatly  in  the  dark.  On  the  question  of 
independent  abstract  propriety  of  repeating  a  bap- 
tism once  rightly  administered,  there  can  be  no  diffi- 
culty. Butthis  case  is  embarrassed  by  many  circum- 
stances that  throw  the  administration  into  great  doubt. 
I  can  suppose  a  case,  (an  extreme  one)  in  which  the 
want  of  baptism  to  the  administrator  would  not  vi- 
tiate his  performance  of  it  to  others.  But  ordinarily 
or  when  it  can  be  avoided,  is  it  best  or  as  good  to 
have  an  unbaptized  administrator  ?  I  would  not 
choose  to  volunteer  a  declaration  that  I  thonghfc^heir 
baptism  invalid.  But  I  would  not  assert  that  it  is  val- 
id. I  lean  over  to  the  side  of  baptizing  them  when 
they  come  to  us.  I  can  have  no  doubt  they  are  bap- 
tized acceptably  in  this  case.  In  the  other  I  might 
have  some  doubt.  And  I  decide  the  case  rather  on 
the  ground  of  expediency  ;  because  I  cannot  see  far 
enough  into  other  grounds  to  know  on  which  side  the 
argument  preponderates." 

But  after  the  publication  of  the  letter  of  **  Doctor 
Fuller,"  herein  reviewed,  he  gives  as  the  result  of 
his  furtheir  investigations,  the  following  : 


DIVERSE    OPINIONS,  23 

*'Dear  Brother  : —  *  *  *  I  do  not  wisli  to 
write  and  publish  my  views  on  this  subject,  still  less 
would  I  have  my  views  presented  uncalled,  in  any 
meetiog  either  of  a  church  or  Association.  But  I 
may  say  to  you  in  friendship,  privately,  that  I  do  not 
think  it  would  be  expedient  for  Baptist  Churches  in 
this  country  to  recognize  the  baptisms  of  Pedobap- 
tist  ministers.  They  never  immerse,  when  the  can- 
didate can  be  persuaded  to  any  other  method ;  they 
generally  speaJc  against  that  particular  mode,  and 
sometimes  ridicule  it,  snd  they  seldom  fail  to  make  a 
ridiculous  and  contemptible  farce  in  their  way  of  ad- 
ministerin.^  it — to  say  nothing  of  these  administra- 
tors being  themselves  unbaptized — this  saying  and 
unsaying — this  doing  of  what  they  dislike  and  con- 
demn, and  which  they  treat  as  if  they  despised  it, 
is  not  to  be  presented  to  Baptist  churches  as  an  act 
which  they  are  to  approve  or  sanction.  Like  Eli's 
sons,  these  administrators  make  the  oflfering  of  the 
Lord,  i7i  that  instance,  to  he  abhorred — it  is  their  wish. 
to  do  so ;  and  to  prevent  any  one  who  witnessses 
their  performance  from  ever  desiring  to  see  it  repea- 
ted, or  to  have  it  in  that  form  themselves.  Now, 
when  Baptists  are  asked  to  receive  these  baptisms, 
they  are  asked,  in  effect,  to  sanction  these  proceed- 
ings, and  thus  to  become  partakers  with  them  in  this 
objectionable  administration. 

But,  suppose  it  were  done  decently  in  the  case  of 
any  particular  candidate,  there  are  inconsistencies 
about  it,  on  the  part  of  both  administrator  and  can- 
didate, that  vitiate  the  performance,  and,  in  this  coun- 
try, where  people  can  find  ready  access  to  Baptist 
churches  if  they  wish,  these  inconsistencies  would 
prevent  me  from  acknowledging  and  receiving  such 
baptisms.     The  candidate  in  demanding  baptism  by 


24  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

immersion,  declares  a  belief  that  no  other  mode  is 
scriptural.  If  this  is  not  his  belief,  then  no  one's 
administration  could  make  him  a  fit  member  of  a 
Baptist  church,  which  is  based  on  that  belief.  If  he 
does  not  believe  this,  then,  where  is  the  consistency 
of  his  immediately  joining  in  fellowship  with  those 
who  disbelieve  it ;  of  his  helping  them  in  a  cause 
which  omits  it,  on  principle,  and  condemns  it  as  un- 
scriptural  ?  By  this  last  act,  he  takes  back  and  con- 
tradicts all  that  he  had  said  and  done  by  his  own  bap- 
tism. If  it  were  allowable,  on  other  accounts,  thus 
to  **show  much  love"  to  Christ's  ordinance,  and  then 
in  works  to  deny  it,  surely  no  value  can  be  attached 
to  it  on  account  of  the  supposed  honesty,  sincerity, 
or  conscientiousness  of  the  recipient ;  for  he  contra- 
dicts himself,  and  it  is  quite  sufficient  to  refute  his 
claim  to  an  orderly,  consistent  baptism — to  place  his 
own  authority  against  himself. 

*  If  I  build  again  that  which  is  destroyed,  I  make 
myself  a  transgressor.'  This  erects  consistency  into 
a  gospel  principle  of  duty.  Now,  in  the  supposed 
case,  the  candidate  destroyed  the  notion  of  Infant 
baptism,  of  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  when  he  deman- 
ded to  be  immersed  as  a  professing  believer;  but  he 
builds  up  those  things  again,  when  he  goes  into  a 
voluntary  and  habitual  fellowship  with  such  as  de- 
light to  practice  them,  and  when  he  stands  by  and 
silently  sanctions  these  things  as  the  practice  of  the 
body  to  which  he  has  chosen  to  belong. 

*  ¥r  *  *  If  one  is  a  Baptist,  let  him  be  a 
Baptist.     *     * 

In  your  wife's  case,  I  hope  the  dear  sister  will  see 
that,  in  coming  into  a  Baptist  church,  she  ought  to  be 
baptized  ;  (I  will  not  say  again)  she  ought  to  be  hop-' 
iized  hy  a  Baptist  minister,  for  the  reasons  I  have  giv- 


DIVERSE    OPINIONS.  25 

ea.  Even  if  she  has  no  sense  of  the  defectiveness  of 
her  Pedobaptist  immersion,  this  does  not  prove  that 
it  was  infallibly  right  and  sufficient.  It  is  only  an 
opinion  of  hers,  which  may  be  as  apt  to  be  wrong  as 
the  opinion  of  other  people.  Especially,  why  should 
she  set  up  her  judgment  against  that  of  the  whole . 
body  of  churches  of  the  only  people  under  heaven 
who  are  striving  to  keep  the  ordinance  of  baptism  as 
Christ  delivered  it  ?  If  the  principles  on  which  her 
Pedobaptist  immersion  proceeded,  are  right,  then 
there  is  no  necessity  for  the  separate  organization  of 
Baptist  churches,  or  the  existence  of  even  the  deno- 
mination itself;  that  ordinance  of  Christ  can  be  suf- 
ficiently well  maintained  by  Pedobaptist  administra- 
tions of  immersion. 

I  think,  therefore,  that,  uutil  Baptist  churches  are 
prepared  to  allow  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  their 
own  separate  organization — no  necessity  for  their  ex- 
istence as  a  denomination — there  is  little  prospect  of 
their  agreeing  to  receive  and  sanction  such  baptisms 
as  that  which  your  good  wife  received.  She  ought 
now,  to  be  baptized  for  conscience'  sake,  if  not  her 
own,  at  least  for  the  sake  of  the  consciences  of  oth- 
ers, who  would  be  grieved  and  ofifended  by  being  re- 
quired to  take  a  course  so  inconsistent  and  suicidal. 
To  come  into  a  Baptist  church,  under  her  present 
baptism,  could  be  no  gain  to  her  ;  she  receives  noth- 
ing. Her  coming  in  that  way  could  be  no  gain  to  the 
Baptist  church,  in  the  matter  of  baptism  ;  they  re- 
ceive nothing,  and  lose  much.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, her  prospect  of  usefulness  or  of  benefit, 
would  be  as  good  out  of  the  Baptist  connection  as  ia 
it.'?     *     *     * 

Elder  A.  Broadus,  of  Va.,  in  his  reply  to  queries 
presented  by  "Xenoi,"  thus  expresses  his  opinion  : 

3 


26  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

**  I  could  wish  the  circumstances  of  the  case  had 
been  stated  by  Xenoi  a  little  more  explicitly  as  I  think 
it  might  thus  be  treated  in  a  more  definite  aud  satis- 
factory manner,  than  by  an  answer  to  the  queries 
which  are  subjoined. 

"Your  apphcants,  it  seems,  have  been  baptized,  i. 
e.,  solemnly  immersed,  upon  a  conviction  of  the  scriptu- 
ral requisition,  and  their  consequent  duty  and  privil- 
ege, as  believers  in  Jesus  Christ.  But  in  accomplish- 
ing this  obiect,  there  was,  as  I  understand  the  mat- 
ter, some  irregularity.  And  this  irregularity,  I  take 
it  for  granted,  was  namely  :  that  the  series  of  bap- 
tisms was  commenced  by  an  unbaptized  individual ; 
for,  so  the  statement  seems  to  imply.  It  says,  that 
*'after  much  serious  consultation  and  fervent  prater, 
it  was  unanimously  resolved,  that  one  of  the  Elders, 
being  immersed,  tiie  work  should  go  on,"  &c.  And 
the  apology  for  this  irregularity,  appears  to  be  the 
non-existence  of  any  Baptist  Church  of  scriptural 
faith,  'within  their  knowledge  or  reach.^  Thus,  as  I 
apprehend  it,  stands  the  case ;  and  the  question  ari- 
sing out  of  it  is,  can  these  persons  be  considered  as 
baptized  with  a  valid  baptism,  and  received  accord- 
ingly ?  This,  it  must  be  admitted,  is  an  important 
matter,  and  one  not  to  be  settled  at  a  single  stroke. 
It  presents  one  of  those  difficulties  which  irregularity 
is  apt  to  involve ;  yet  it  requires  to  be  settled,  and  in 
the  best  manner  that  circumstances  will  admit. 

"Let  us  inquire,  can  any  degree  of  irregularity  be 
admitted  in  the  peiformance  of  those  divine  ordinan- 
ces, called  positive  institutions,  without  destroying 
the  validity  of  the  performance? 

"Any  deviation  from  ihe  original  plan,  the  divine 
naodel,  must  be  allowed,  in  such  a  case,  to  be  dange- 
rous ;  and  I  should  say,  that  as  positive   institutions 


DIVERSE   OPINIONS.  27 

possess  in  themselves  no  intrinsic  value,  but  derive 
their  worth  from  the  authority  and  command  of  the 
inslitutcr,  a  change  in  the  form  or  the  subject  of  the 
institution  must  subvert  the  ordinance,  and  render 
the  performance  nugatory.  To  which  I  may  add, 
that  the  same  effect  would  follow,  where  the  action, 
on  the  part  of  the  admistrator  or  the  subject,  should 
appear  to  have  been  performed  in  the  spirit  of  mock- 
ery, or  without  regard  to  the  solemnity  of  the  ob- 
ject." 

"  Now,  to  the  particular  case  before  us.  The  plea 
of  difficulty  here  urged,  I  take  it  for  granted,  is  a 
reasonable  one  ;  and  the  irregularity,  as  before  pre- 
sumed, consists  in  the  commencement  of  the  series 
of  baptisms  by  an  unbaptized — perhaps  an  unordain- 
ed  individual.  But  it  was  all  done  upon  solemn  con- 
viction of  divine  requirement,  upon  profession  of 
evangelical  faith  ;  and  in  due  form,  according  to 
Christ's  expressed  will  as  to  the  action.  Does  the 
apparent  defect  in  the  circumstances  here  stated,  in- 
validate the  baptism?  I  am  persuaded  it  does 
not. 

"I  will  plead  not  as  a  precedent,  the  case  of  the 
baptism  of  Roger  Williams,  and  his  congregation  in 
Rhode  Island,  from  whom  many  of  the  Baptists  of 
this  country  have  sprano-;  if  that  was  wrong,  it  can- 
not make  this  right.*  Nor  am  I  disposed  to  deny, 
that  baptizers  in  the  apostles'  days  were  all  baptized 
persons  ;  though,  by  the  way,  the  first   baptizer  was 


*  Is  it  certain  that  uiany  of  the  Baptists  of  this  country, 
have  sprung  from  Ro^er  Williams  ?  I  think  not.  Will  all 
who  -wish  to  see  a  history  of  Roger  Williams'  church,  exam- 
ine a  little  book,  "Trials  and  Suffdrings  for  Religious  Liber- 
ty, etc."    Price  40  ceLts.— Ed. 


28  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

not  so;  but  this  is  to  be  admitted  rather  as  a  matter 
'of  course,  all  belivers  being  then  baptized  straight- 
way; that  is,  where  it  could  be  done.  It  ought  to  be 
so  now;  and  in  that  case,  there  would  probably  have 
been  here  no  difficulty.  The  baptizer  who  commenced 
this  operation,  ought  himself  to  have  been  baptized 
before  this  period :  but  it  does  not  follow,  that  because 
he  was  not  baptized,  and  now  perhaps  could  not  be, 
that  therefore  he  ought  not,  under  existing  circum- 
stances, to  have  engaged  in  this  work.  George  Whit- 
field, who  was  a  Pedobaptist,  and  never  baptized, 
ought  .to  have  been  baptized  before  he  went  forth  to 
preach;  he  might  have  been  too,  he,  if  he  would; 
and  yet  I  should  be  loath  to  say,  that  George  Whit- 
field, though  he  ought  to  have  been  baptized,  ought 
not  to  have  preached  at  all,  unless  he  had  been  bap- 
tized.    And  so  of  many  others. 

The  baptizer  ought  himself  to  be  previously  bap- 
tized. This  is  readily  admitted ;  and  though  for  any 
thing  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  the  obligation  lies 
on  him  rather  in  the  character  of  a  believer,  than  in 
that  of  an  administrator,  I  would  be  far  from  sanc- 
tioning the  practice  of  baptizing  by  an  unbaptized 
administrator,  where  the  nature  of  the  case  does  not 
render  it  necessary.  The  conduct  of  some  Pedobap- 
tists,  both  on  the  part  of  the  administrator  and  the 
subject,  presents  an  anomaly  which  can  neither  be 
justified  nor  excused — the  subject  submitting  to  be 
immersed  by  an  unbaptized  administrator,  wtio  has 
no  faith  in  the  act." — {L^fe  and  Writings  of  Rev.  A. 
BroadduSf  pp.  453 — 457. 

This,  for  all  practical  purposes,  is  quite  equivalent 
to  a  denial  of  the  right  of  Pedobaptists,  to  baptize  at 
all,  since  there  is  no  case  in  which  the  parties  "Aaw 


DIVERSE   OPINIONS.  29 

no  Baptist  church,*^  or  minister  '^within  their  reach  or 
knowledge  ;"  and  where  they  are  likely  to  desire  bap- 
tism by  immersion.  In  another  place,  Elder  Broaddus 
says,  •'  Let  it  be  moreover  remembered  that  Pedo- 
baptist  ministers  have  no  right  to  be  tampering  wiihbap- 
tism,  they  themselves  refusing  to  submit  to  the  ordi- 
nance. 

"Doctor  Cone/'  of  New  York,  gives  his  opinion  as 
follows : 

**You  ask  whether  persons  immersed  by  Pedobap- 
tist  ministers  ought  to  be  received  into  a  Baptist 
church  ?  I  answer,  No.  Such  baptisms  are  not 
considered  valid  by  the  regular  Baptist  churches,  ei- 
ther of  England  or  the  United  States.  See  the  com- 
mission, 'Go  ye,'  (fee,  and  'Let  all  things  be  done 
decently  and  in  order.'  There  would  be  nothing  but 
disorder  introduced  into  gospel  churches,  could  bap- 
tism be  administered  by  any  but  ministers  duly  au- 
thorized." 

The  opinion  of  Elder  T.  Meredith,  of  N.  Carolina, 
the  late  distinguished  Editor  of  the  "Biblical  Record- 
er," and  whose  judgment  upon  such  a  subject  is  en- 
titled, probably,  to  quite  as  much  consideration  as 
those  of  any  of  the  "Doctors,"  may  be  gathered  from 
the  following  correspondence  : 

Dear  Brother  : — I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  wri- 
ting you  a  few  lines,  begging  your  views  on  the  fol- 
lowing question:  Is  baptism  by  immersion,  when  per- 
formed by  a  Pedobaptist  minister,  who  has  been  pour- 
ed on  himself,  or  sprinkled,  valid  ?  and  ought  per- 

3* 


30  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMEKSIONS. 

sons  so  baptized  to  be  admitted  into  the  Baptist 
church  ?  Your  compliance  will  be  esteemed  a  great 
favor  by  an  humble  Baptist ;  and  I  must  beg  your 
forgiveness  for  the  liberty  I  have  taken,  being  a  stran- 
ger. James  Fripp,  Jr. 

Heply.—ln  reply  to  the  foregoing,  we  would  re- 
spectfully state  the  following — although  we  have  had 
occasion  to  express  substantially  the  same  views  be- 
fore. 

**  1.  Baptism  is  indispensable,  as  a  qualification  for 
an  administrator,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  not,  then  all 
denominations  of  Christians,  the  Friends  only  excep- 
ted, are  in  error  ;  for  all  maintain  that,  in  order 
to  he  duly  qualified  for  the  administration  of  gospel 
ordinances,  a  person  must  have  a  valid  baptism.  Our 
Pedobaptist  friends  would  no  more  receiv^e  baptism 
from  a  person  whom  they  considered  unbaptized, 
than  would  a  Baptist  of  the  most  rigid  principles. 
But  if  baptism  be  indispensable  as  a  qualification  fur 
an  administrator  of  that  ordinance,  then  it  must  fol- 
low that  a  person  cannot  be  validly  baptized  by  one 
who  has  not  himself  received  a  valid  baptism. 

**  2.  Again,  immersion  is  indispensable  to  a  valid 
baptism,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  not,  then  Baptists  and 
all  others  who  insist  on  immersion,  are  in  error,  and 
lay  a  very  unnecessary  stress  on  a  form  of  baptism, 
which,  for  sundry  cogent  reasons,  might  as  well  be 
dispensed  with.  But  if  immersion  is  indispensable 
to  a  valid  baptism,  then  an  administrator  who  has 
not  been  immersed,  has  not  received  a  valid  baptism 
himself,  and  of  course  cannot  be  qualified  to  admin- 
ister a  valid  baptism  toothers. 

"3.  If  the  foregoing  reasoning  be  correct,  a  person 
who  insists  on  immersion  as  a  valid  baptism  for  him- 


DIVERSE    OPINIONS.  31 

self,  thereby  virtually  denies  the  validity  of  a  bap- 
tism administered  by  a  person  who  has  not  himself 
received  a  valid  immersion.  And  hence  all  such  per- 
sons convict  themselves  of  the  absurdity  of  either  in- 
sisting on  that  which  is  unnecessary  for  themselves, 
or  of  receiving  a  baptism  which,  on  their  own  prin- 
ciples and  on  their  own  showing,  can  have  no  just 
claims  to  validity. 

*^4.  By  the  same  reasoning — should  a  Baptist 
church  think  proper  to  admit  to  their  number,  a  per- 
son who  has  been  immersed  by  an  unimmersed  admin- 
istrator, they  thereby  convict  themselves  of  the  in- 
consistency of  contending  for  what  is  superfluous  in 
relation  to  themselves — and  of  admitting  one  into 
their  communion  who,  on  their  ow^n  principles,  and 
agreeably  to  their  own  practice,  cannot  have  received 
a  valid  baptism. 

"  5,  Should  it  be  said  that  this  view  of  things  im- 
plies the  necessity  of  an  uninterrujjted  succession  of 
qualified  administrators,  from  the  Apostles  down — we 
reply,  it  does  so,  as  a  general  rule — but  not  more  so 
than  the  views  of  all  persons  who  consider  baptism 
as  a  qualification  for  an  administrator  of  the  ordin- 
ances. In  this  respect  we  occupy  the  same  ground 
as  that  occupied  by  our  Pedobaptist  brethren.  We 
all  insist  on  the  necessity  of  a  regular  succession  of 
qualified  administrators  as  a  general  rule — but  all 
agree  that  the  general  rule  may  have  exceptions — 
that  necessity  knows  no  law — and  that  when  a  valid 
baptism  is  absolutely  impracticable,  it  may  be  dis- 
pensed with  altogether,  not  only  without  sin,  but  with- 
out affecting  the  validity  of  such  ordinances,  as  from 
the  necessity  of  the  case  are  made  to  emanate  from 
such  omission.  The  Head  of  the  church  requires 
his  laws  to  be  rightly  obeyed  when  obedience  is  prac- 


32  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

ticable — and  when  obedience  is  not  practicable,  the 
will,  if  it  truly  and  sincerely  exist,  will  be  taken  for 
the  deed.  It  is  required  of  man  according  to  what 
he  has — not  according  to  what  he  has  not." 


QUESTION   TO    BE    SETTLED.  33 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   PRECISE    QUESTION    TO     BE    SETTLED THE    PRIN- 
CIPLES  BY   WHICH    IT    CAN   BE    DETERMINED. 

Before  we  can  engage  to  tlie  best  advantage 
in  the  discussion  of  any  qiiestionj  we  must  de- 
termine precisely  wliat  it  is  that  we  desire  to 
decide.  The  question  we  now  propose  to  answer 
is  a  simple  question  of  church  duty.  A  person 
who  has^  upon  a  profession  of  his  faith  in  Christ, 
been  solemnly  immersed  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  by  a  pedobaptist 
minister,  and  in  order  to  his  reception  with  a 
pedobaptist  society,  applies  for  membership  in 
a  Baptist  church.  Shall  that  church  regard 
him  as  baptized  or  unbaptized  ?  If  baptized, 
she  must  receive  him  as  though  he  had  come 
from  a  sister  Baptist  church  without  further 
ceremony.  If  unbaptized,  she  must  administer 
the  ordinance  before  she  can  receive  him.    ^ 

The  question  as  commonly  put  is,  whether 
such  baptism  is  valid  baptism  ?     Now  what  do 


34  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

we  mean  by  "  valid  ?"  It  may  save  us  a  great 
deal  of  trouble  to  settle  this  point  before  we  go 
any  further.     And, 

1.  It  is  evident  that  when,  as  a  church  of 
Christ,  we  say  a  baptism  is  '^  valid,"  we  mean 
to  say  that  it  is  scriptural,  or,  in  other  wovds, 
that  in  all  essential  particulars  it  is  exactly 
conformed  to  the  requisitions  of  the  word  of  God, 
It  corresponds  precisely  in  all  its  essential  feat- 
ures to  the  Scripture  model.  We  have  no  other 
law  for  baptism  but  that  contained  in  the 
Word.  By  this  only  can  we  know  that  we  are 
to  baptize  at  all — by  this  only  can  we  know 
whom  we  are  to  baptize — and  by  this  only  can 
we  settle  any  question  which  may  arise  con- 
cerning it. 

2.  Baptists  all  agree  that  the  person  bap- 
tized must  be  a  believer  in  Christ,  and  that  a 
baptism  conferred  in  infancy,  or  before  any  })ro- 
fession  of  faith  in  Christ  would  be  invalid,  that 
is  unscrij)tural. 

3.  Baptists  all  agree  that  the  very  act  of 
baptism  as  expressed  by  the  word  which  in  the 
Greek  language  is  employed  to  designate  it,  is 
immersion.  Anything  else  claiming  to  be  bap- 
tism, they  must,  therefore,  reject  as  invalid  that 
is  unscriptural. 

4.  Baptists  alj  agree,  moreover,  that  a  bap- 
tism to  be  ^'  valid"  must  have  been  performed 
by  some  one  as  the  administrator.  This  the 
very  nature   of   the  ordinance  requires.     Be- 


QUESTION    TO    BE    SETTLED.  35 

lievers  were  ordered  to  be  baptized — not  to 
baptize  themselves.  If  they  are  to  be  baptized, 
somebody  must  baptize  them.  This  is  self- 
evident. 

5.  And  it  is  equally  self-evident  that  every 
man  and  every  woman  and  every  child  who  has 
the.  physical  strength  to  bury  another  in  the 
water  is  a  scriptural  administrator  of  baptism, 
unless  the  Scriptures  have  limited  the  adminis- 
tration of  it  to  certain  persons  or  classes  of  2>er- 
sons.  If  the  Scriptures  merely  direct  those  who 
are  conscious  that  they  have  believed,  to  be  bap- 
tized, without  specifying  of  whom  they  are  to  seek 
this  rite,  then  each  must  be  at  perfect  liberty  to 
choose  his  own  administrator.  The  wife  may 
select  her  husband  though  he  be  no  believer. 
The  child  may  choose  his  parent.  The  sister 
may  call  upon  her  brother.  The  servant  his 
master  or  his  fellow-servant.  Where  there  is 
no  law  there  can  be  no  trans^ession.  If  the 
Scriptures  do  not  designate  the  administrator 
let  men  beware  how  they  set  bounds  where 
God  has  left  all  free.  If  God  have  authorized 
each  individual  believer  to  choose  his  own  bap- 
tizer,  no  society  or  church.  Baptist  or  Pedo- 
baptist,  has  any  right  to  come  between  that 
individual  and  the  administrator  of  his  choice — 
let  that  administrator  be  who  or  what  he  may. 
Let  us  beware  how  we  usurp  authority  in  the 
kingdom  of  Christ. 

6.  It  must  also  be  self-evident,  that  if  God 


36  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

in  the  Word  has  limited  the  administration  of 
the  ordinance  to  any  person,  or  classes  of  per- 
sons, no  others  have  or  can  have,  any  authority 
to  administer  it.  If  he  limited  it  to  some,  he 
by  that  act  forbade  all  others.  To  deny  this, 
is  to  declare  that  although  Grod  has  expressly 
limited  it  to  a  certain  class,  yet  it  is  not  lim- 
ited to  them,  but  is  unlimited  ;  though  God  has 
fixed  definite  bounds,  yet  there  are  no  bounds 
existing,  but  every  one  is  just  as  free  to  do  it  as 
though  there  were  no  bounds.  This  is  a  con- 
tradiction and  absurd. 

7.  It  is  equally  evident,  that  the  Scriptures 
must  either  have  limited  or  not  have  limited, 
the  administrators  of  baptism ;  and  if  they 
have  limited  them  at  all,  the  limit  must  be  fixed 
and  definite.  That  is  to  say,  there  must  be 
some  whose  baptism  is  valid,  that  is  scriptural, 
given  by  authority ;  and  some  others  whose 
performance  of' the  rite  would  be  invalid,  that 
is  unauthorized,  and  therefore,  according  to  sec- 
tion sixth,  forbidden  and  sinful. 

8.  Once  more.  It  is  self-evident,  that  if  a 
command  to  believers,  as  such,  to  be  baptized, 
limits  the  reception  of  baptism  under  that  com- 
mand to  behevers  ;  the  command  to  administer 
the  baptism  given  to  the  baptized,  as  such, 
limits  the  administration  under  that  command 
to  those  who  are  baptized.  Or  if  given  to 
church  members  as  such,  it  limits  it  to  church 
members.     Or  if  given  to  ministers  as  such,  it 


QUESTION  TO  BE  SETTLED.        37 

limits  it  to  ministers.  If  there  be  any  author- 
ity to  baptize  others  than  believers,  it  must  be 
found  elsewhere  than  in  the  language,  "  he  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized/'  So  if  there  be  any 
authority  to  others  than  such  as  those  to  whom 
Christ  said:  "Go  ye,  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them,"  etc.,  it  must  be  found  somewhere 
else  than  in  this  great  commission. 

Now  with  these  eight  points  before  us.  Each 
one  admitted,  or  so  self-evident  that  it  needs 
no  proof,  may  we  not  hope  to  set  this  question 
permanently  at  rest.  Can  it  be  possible  that  it 
cannot  ascertain  from  the  Word  of  Grod,  whether 
the  administration  of  baptism  was  limited  to 
some,  or  open  and  free  to  all.  If  limited,  can 
we  not  determine  at  least  whether  it  was  limited 
to  those  w^ho  had  received  it,  or,  in  other  words, 
to  the  baptized.  If  we  can  but  make  out  this 
one  point  we  need  go  no  further.  Then  it 
will  follow  of  necessity,  according  to  section  sixth, 
that  baptism  administered  by  the  unbaptized  is 
a  forbidden,  and  therefore  sinful  thing,  which 
the  churches  ouorht  not  to  recoo;nize. 

Here  then  we  see  the  point  to  which,  from 
the  logical  necessity  of  the  case,  our  investiga- 
tions must  be  directed.  1 .  We  must  ascertain 
whether  the  Scriptures  have  limited  the  ad- 
ministrator at  all,  or  whether  every  believer 
is  at  liberty  to  choose,  in  the  church  or  in  the 
world,  among  the  saints  or  the  sinners,  who  shall, 
bury  him  in  the  water  in  accordance  with  the- 

4 


38  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

commandment  ?     2.  If  it  be  limited  at  all,  to 

wliom  is  it  limited  ? 

Surely,  one  would  expect  to  find  no  very  seri- 
ous difficulty  in  settling  the  first  point  at  least. 
So  evident  is  it,  that  the  Scriptures  have  placed 
some  bounds  here,  that  few,  if  any,  will  be  found 
bold  enough  to  contend  that  every  believer  is 
:at  liberty  to  choose,  as  above  stated,  his  own 
baptizer.  Among  all  the  absurdities  which  have 
l)een  held,  I  do  not  think  that  any  society  of 
christians  who  recognized  baptism  as  required 
at  all,  except  only  some  few  Baptists,  have 
ever  ventured  to  hold  such  an  absurdity  as  this. 
Without  exception  they  all  contend  that  it  is 
limited,  and,  with  the  solitary  exception  of  a 
portion  of  the  Baptists,  they  all  agree  that  it  is 
limited  to  baptized  members  of  the  churches, 
most  of  them,  to  ministers  lawfully  ordained  by 
the  churches.  What  these  Baptists  believe 
and  teach  it  will  be  seen  from  the  review  fol- 
lowing is  rather  difficult  to  decide. 

Let  the  reader  determine  if  he  can.  But  one 
thing  to  our  mind  is  certain,  and  that  is,  that 
this  question,  like  the  communion  question, 
could  never  have  arisen  if  all  who  professed  to 
be  the  followers  of  Christ  had  promptly  obeyed 
the  teachings  of  God's  Word.  In  regard  to 
this  question,  as  to  that  a  portion  of  the  Bap- 
tists have  been  driven,  apparently  by  the  fear 
of  being  charged  with  bigotry  and  exclusivism, 
to  take  a  position  which  no  Presbyterian,    or 


QUESTION    TO    BE    SETTLED.  39 

Methodist,  or  Episcopalian  would  dare  to  take, 
viz.,  that  those  who  have  not  been  baptized  and 
are  not  members  of  any  church  are  yet  autho- 
rized by  the  Scriptures  to  administer  christian 
ordinances — so  true  is  it  that  "  the  fear  of  man 
bringeth  a  snare.'' 

It  may  serve  to  show  how  probable  it  is  that 
they  are  wrong,  that  like  the  defenders  of  infant 
baptism  these  brethren  while  they  all  agree  in 
the  conclusion — viz.,  that  the  immersions  of 
pedobaptists  are  good  and  valid  baptisms — yet 
they  cannot  agree  upon  the  grounds  on  which 
this  conclusion  should  be  left  to  rest. 

Elder  Fuller  says  the  matter  must  be  left  to 
the  conscience  of  the  applicant.  Now,  this  is 
equivalent  to  saying  that  the  {Scripture  has  left 
it  for  every  man  to  choose  his  own  baptizer,  as 
stated  in  section  five,  and  if  so,  of  course  the 
church  has  nothing  to  do  but  ask  if  he  is  satis- 
fied. 

Elder  Waller  says  that  the  commission  was 
given  to  the  churches,  as  such  ;  and  it  follows,  of 
course,  that  of  the  administration  of  baptism  is 
limited  to  them  and  such  as  they  may  appoint; 
and  he  seems  to  suppose,  though  he  does  not 
venture  to  assert,  that  they  (the  churches)  may 
go  outside  the  kingdom,  and  appoint  those  who 
have  never  themselves  been  made  members ! 

How  else  he  gets  authority  for  them,  we  can- 
not discern. 

Elder  Johnson,  aZ'/a<9   "W.,"   discovers   that 


40  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

these  pedobaptist  immersers  are  officers,  not 
incleecl  of  the  churches,  of  which,  he  says,  they 
cannot  even  be  members,  but  of  the  visible 
Idngdom,  which  is  a  different  thing  from  the 
churches.  But  yet  he  recognizes  baptism  as 
the  initiatory  rite  of  this  kingdom,  without 
such  none  can  be  visibly  a  member  in  it,  and 
must  therefore  be  driven  to  the  absurdity  of 
contending  that  Christ  entrusted  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  initiatory  rite  of  his  kingdom,  to 
men  who  are  not  visibly  members  of  it.  But 
let  us  not  anticipate.  They  will  speak  for  them- 
selves. 


REVIEW   OF   WALLER.  41 


CHAPTER  III. 

REVIEW   OF   J.    L.    WALLER. 

Some  years  ago,  our  lamented  Brother  Wal- 
ler prepared  and  joublished  in  the  Western 
Baptist  Review,  the  following  Article.  In  the 
recent  discussion  of  this  subject  and  of  ques- 
tions growing  out  of  it,  reference  has  been  often 
made  to  this  great  man's  opinion,  as  though  it 
should  of  itself  do  very  much  to  settle  the  con- 
troversy. I  am  very  glad,  therefore,  to  see  his 
article  republished  in  the  Western  Recorder,  of 
November  25th,  1857,  so  that  brethren  may  see 
for  themselves  what  positions  he  actually  took, 
and  by  what  arguments  he  endeavored  to  sus- 
tain them.  Let  the  reader  observe  how  small  a 
part  of  all  he  said  has  any  direct  bearing  upon 
the  question  in  dispute.  That  question  is  not 
whether  one  baptized  in  unbelief  is  properly 
baptized,  Upon  this  point.  Baptists  are  very 
generally  agreed.  Nor  is  it  whether  baptism 
given  by  a  layman  is  valid  baptism.  But 
whether  baptism  administered  without  any  au- 
thority from  a  true  visible  church  of  Christ,  is 
true  and  valid  baptism.     If  Pedobaptist  Socie- 

4- 


42  PEDOBAPTIST   l^jJlERSIONS. 

ties  are  not  true  churches  of  Christ,  then  bap- 
tism conferred  in  them,  is  conferred  by  neither 
ministers  nor  laymen,  but  simply  by  those  who 
are  not  members  of  a  visible  church  of  Christ 
at  all.  But  here  is  the  Essay  ;  and  notwith- 
standing its  rambling  and  desultory  character, 
it  merits  most  attentive  consideration,  if  for  no 
other  reason  than  because  it  is  the  production  of 
one  whose  name  itself  is  regarded  by  many  as 
a  tower  of  strength  to  those  w^ho  can  rally  be- 
hind it  in  any  contest  : — 

ESSAY. 

'•'  The  inquiry  is  often  made,  whether  persons 
baptized  upon  a  profession  of  genuine  repen- 
tance and  faith,  by  a  ^'  Reformer,''  or  by  a  Pedo- 
baptist,  ought,  on  such  baptism  to  be  received 
as  members  of  Baptist  churches  ?  In  the  West, 
the  practice  of  our  churches  has  not  been  uni- 
form, and  the  opinions  of  brethren  who  have 
bestowed  considerable  attention  upon  the  sub- 
ject, are  discordant.  This  question  is  substan- 
tially the  same  with  that  which  has  for  many 
centuries  elicited  so  much  angry  and  useless  dis- 
cussion, viz  :  Is  an  ordained  minister  in  the  true 
church,  as  an  administrator,  at  all  times  essen- 
tial to  the  validity  of  baptism  ? 

But  our  practice,  although  not  uniform,  has 
not  been  the  cause  of  any  serious  misunder- 
standing.     It   has  been   left   entirely   to   the 


KEVIEW    OF   WALLER.  43 

churches  to  dispose  of,  as  the  merits  of  the  ap- 
plicants seemed  to  demand ;  and  where  dissent 
has  occurred  at  all,  it  has  been  confined  to  the 
bounds  of  the  church  where  the  case  existed ; 
and  to  the  churches  in  their  independent  ca- 
pacities it  rightfully  belongs.  It  can  never  be 
taken  from  them.  We  must  be  understood, 
then,  as  simply  discussing  a  question  of  expedi- 
ency and  propriety,  about  which  a  variety  of 
opinions  may  exist,  and  yet  furnish  no  just 
cause  of  alienation  of  feeling.  In  the  discus- 
sion of  this  and  all  kindred  questions,  our  ar- 
guments must  necessarily  be  based  upon  infer- 
ences drawn  from  the  Scriptures.  There  is  no 
express  precept  or  example  to  guide  us  in  our 
investigations.  The  question  is  a  new  one — 
originating  out  of  the  unhallowed  and  unfortu- 
nate dissentions  and  divisions  that  have  trans- 
pired since  the  canon  of  Scripture  was  closed. 
But  we  must  be  careful  not  to  violate  any  of 
the  injunctions  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  exam- 
ine attentively  for  thos^great  landmarks  drawn 
by  inspiration,  to  conduct  the  patient  and  pray- 
erful enquirer  after  truth  in  the  ways  that  he 
should  go.  The  primitive  practice  is  clear.  The 
path  in  which  the  holy  men  of  old  walked  is  so 
plain  that  a  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  need 
not  err  therein.  Then  all  who  believed  and 
were  baptized,  were  admitted  into  the  church. 
The  commission  of  the  Savior  was,  "  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 


44  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  "Preach  the  Gospel  to 
every  creature  ;  he  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved."*^ 

The  first  matter  that  the  church  should  in- 
quire into  respecting  an  individual  baptized  by 
a  "Reformer/'  or  a  Pedobaptist,  is,  was  he  a 
disciple  or  believer,  in  the  Scriptural  sense  of 
these  terms,  before  baptism  ?  An  unconverted 
person  is  not  a  disciple  or  believer  in  the  Bible 
sense,  and  therefore  cannot  receive  christian 
baptism.  This  is  most  fully  asserted  by  Mr. 
Campbell,  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Rice.  He 
says  : — 

^No  man  believes  more  cordially,  or  teaches 
more  fully,  the  necessity  of  a  Scriptural  change 
of  our  affections — a  change  of  heart — than  I  do. 
I  have  said  a  thousand  times  that  if  a  person 
were  to  be  immersed  twice  seven  times  in  the 
Jordan  for  the  remission  of  sins,  or  for  the  re- 
ception of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  would  avail  noth- 
ing more  than  the  wetting  the  face  of  a  babe, 
unless  the  heart  is  changed  by  the  word  and 
spirit  of  God.  I  have  no  confidence  in  any  in- 
strumentality, ordinance,  or  observance,  unless 
the  heart  is  turned  to  God.  This  is  the  funda- 
mental, the  capital  point;  but  with  these,  every 
other  divine  ordinance  is  essential  for  the  spiritual 
enlargement,  confirmation  and  sanctification  of 
the  faithful.' — Pages  544  and  545. 
•  Matt,  xxviii.  19  :  Mark  xvi.  16. 


REVIEW    OF   WALLER.  45 

You  have  heard  me  say  here,  (and  the  whole 
country  may,  have  read  it  and  heard  it  many  a 
time,)  that  a  sevenfold  immersion  in  the  Jor- 
dan or  any  water,  without  a  previous  change 
of  heart,  will  avail  nothing,  without  a  genuine 
faith  and  penitence.  Nor  would  the  most  strict 
conformity  to  all  the  forms  and  usages  of  the 
most  perfect  church  order,  the  most  exact  ob- 
servance of  all  Ifhe  ordinances,  without  personal 
faith,  piety,  and  moral  righteousness — without 
a  new  heart,  hallowed  lips,  and  a  holy  life, 
profit  anv  man  in  reference  to  eternal  salvation.'' 
—Page  678. 

As  we  would  not  receive  a  babe  into  our 
churches,  no  matter  how  solemnly  its  face  had 
been  sprinkled,  so,  according  to  the  reasoning  of 
Mr.  Campbell,  we  could  not  consistently  admit 
an  individual  to  membership,  who  had  been 
baptized  without  his  heart  being  "changed  by 
the  word  and  spirit  of  God."  Without  this, 
though  plunged  ever  so  often,  it  is  no  more 
baptism  than  ''the  wetting  the  face  of  a  babe." 
Of  this  change,  then,  the  church  ought  to  be 
fully  persuaded.  The  Baptists  will  not  admit 
one  to  baptism  unless  they  believe  his  heart 
has  been  changed,  that  he  has  ''a  genuine  foith 
any  penitence.''  They  could  not,  therefore, 
without  manifest  impropriety  and  inconsist- 
ency, receive  a  person  baptized  in  any  other  de- 
nomination unless  satisfied  that  he  had  experi- 
enced a  change  of  heart  before  baptism.     Thus 


46  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

far,  tlien,  we  suppose  there  will  be  no  difFer- 
ence  of  opinion. 

The  next  matter  of  inquiry  is  :  Has  the  per- 
son, as  above  described,  been  baptised  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  ?  If  not,  then  the  commandment 
of  the  Savior  has  not  been  complied  with  ;  and 
as  a  guardian  of  the  truth  and  of  the  word  of 
God,  the  church  must  reject  him.  Baptism  is 
immersion.  This  we  will  take  for  granted,  and 
shall  not  pause  to  prove.  Of  course  it  is  not  ex- 
pected that  Baptists  will  recognize  anything 
else  as  baptism.  The  matter  before  us  then 
is,  that  a  person  whose  heart  has  been  changed 
by  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God,  and  who  has  a 
genuine  faith  and  penitence,  has  been  solemnly 
baptized,  or  immersed,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
by  a  ^"Reformer,"  or  Pedobaptist.  What  does 
he  lack  yet  ?  Is  the  commission  fulfilled  which 
says,  "  Make  disciples,  baptizing  them.  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 

To  these  questions  only  one  answer  can  be 
returned  :  that  his  baptism  is  strictly  in  accor- 
dance with  the  commission,  unless  it  prescribes 
the  administrator  as  absolutely  as  the  mode  and 
the  subject.  So  our  investigations  are  now  lim- 
ited to  the  inquiry,  whether  the  great  commis- 
sion has  made  the  validity  of  the  ordinance 
depend  on  the  administration,  as  well  as  on  the 
subject  and  the  mode  ?     To  a  certain  extent, 


REVIEW    OF   WALLER.  47 

all  will  answer  the  question  affirmatively.  The 
difference  of  opinion  consists  in  this,  whether 
the  administration  of  baptism  is  limited  to  a 
l)rivi]eged  class  in  the  church  or  not.  Tliis  is 
a  vexed  question,  and  has  long  been  agitated. 
It  has  given  rise  to  much  discussion,  and  able 
advocates  on  either  side  have  been  found  in  all 
the  leading  denominations  of  Christendom. 
The  Episcopalians  are  divided.  One  party, 
while  it  admits  that  baptism  ought  ordinarily 
to  be  administered  by  one  who  has  been  espe- 
cially ordained,  yet  contends  that  it  may,  in  cer- 
tain cases,  be  administered  by  others  ;  and  that 
such  a  baptism,  although  irregular  and  defective, 
is  nevertheless  valid.  But  another  party  denies 
the  validity  of  all  lay  baptism — that  is,  "  Bap- 
tism (or  the  form  thereot^  administered  by  such 
as  have  not  received  a  regular  commission  to  act 
as  Christ/s  ministers,  from  the  successors  of  the 
apostles,  the  bishops  of  the  church  of  God. 
None  admit  the  regularity  or  legaHty  of  laybap- 
tism  who  maintain  that  Episcopal  ordination  is 
necessaryto  constitute  a  man  an  ambassador  to 
Grod.  Will  those  who  deny  that  Episcopal  or- 
dination is  essential  to  a  regular,  legal  and  valid 
ministry,  we  have  no  common  ground.  For  we  re- 
gard as  laymen  all  who  have  not  a  commission 
Episcopally  conveyed.  Our  argument  is  with 
those  who,  while  they  maintain  (according  to 
the  Primitive  and  Catholic  rule,  nulla  Ecclesia 
sine  Episcopo,  no  church  without  the  Bishop,) 


48  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

that  a  commission,  derived  from  Christ  through 
his  Apostles  and  their  Episcopal  successors,  is 
essential  to  regular  and  valid  ministration  in 
things  divine,  hold,  notwithstanding  that  the 
irregular  and  illegal  ministration  of  the  Holy 
Sacrament  of  baptism,  in  particular,  whether 
by  a  layman  in  or  out  of  the  church,  is  truly  a 
sacrament,  and  valid  to  the  receiver."*  Not 
unlike  this  is  the  minutes  of  the  Gener^^l  As- 
sembly of  the  (Old  School)  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States,  setting  forth  the  reasons 
why  Papal  baptism  should  be  rejected,  viz  : 
that  baptism  is  invalid,  unless  ^'administered 
by  a  regular  ordained  minister  in  the  true  church 
of  Grod  visible/'  These  opinions  of  the  Church- 
men and  of  the  General  Assembly  are  equally 
destitute  of  foundation.  They  are  as  impal- 
joable  as  phantoms  ;  Scripture,  facts,  and  com- 
mon sense,  utterly  subvert  them.  The  Bible 
knows  nothing  of  those  ecclesiastical  oligarchs — 
of  those  inflated  bladders  of  spiritual  dignity, 
which  Mr.  Ogilby  denominates  ''Bishops,''  and 
"  Episcopal  successors''  of  the  Apostles.  Pie 
rejects  the  baptism  of  the  people  of  God  who, 
during  the  darkness  of  Papal  superstition, 
"the  world's  midnight,"  were  "worn  out"  by 
the  persecution  of  the  Man  of  Sin,  because,  ac- 
cording to  his  theory,  they  were  laymen  ;"  not 
having  received  "  Episcopal  ordination  ;"  and 

*  Ogilby  against  baptism,  pp.  13,  14. 


EEVIEW   OF   WALLER.  49 

he  recognizes  the  bloodthirsty  monsters  whose 
hands  were  reeking  with  the  blood  of  God's 
people,  as  the  prelatical  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles !  From  the  Man  of  Sin  and  Son  of  Perdi- 
tion, according  to  this  hypothesis,  we  can  only 
receive  true  baptism  ;  and  mystical  Babylon  is 
the  mother  of  all  the  true  churches  of  God. 
But  the  Scriptures  saythat  she  is  the  "  Mother 
of  Harlots/'  Nor  have  we  from  the  Apostles  a 
regular  succession  of  ministers,  deriving  ordina- 
tion in  an  unbroken  chain  in  the  true  church 
of  God  visible.  The  ministerial  successors  of 
the  Apostles  is  an  order  dependent  for  its  exis- 
tence on  proofs,  as  chimerical  and  dream-like  as 
that  of  '•  Episcopal  successors.''  The  Kedeemer 
made  no  promise  of  such  a  succession.  It  is 
the  invention  of  man's  vain  imagination.  Its 
career  has  been  that  of  inquiry.  It  has  no 
foundation  in  truth.  It  is  no  where  in  the 
Scriptures  made  the  duty  of  ministers  as  such 
to  give  the  rite  of  baptism.  To  the  churches 
are  committed  the  keys.  They  can  open,  and 
none  can  shut :  they  can  shut,  and  none  can 
open.  The  churches  are  the  highest  authority 
under  Christ.  They  are  not  dependent  on  the 
ministry  for  existence,  but  the  ministry  upon  the 
churches.  That  propriety  may  make  it  expe- 
dient for  the  churches  to  asssign  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism  to  their  ministers  or  ser- 
vants, so  far  from  being  denied  on  our  part,  is 
most  earnestly  and  strenuously  insisted  upon. 

5 


50  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

But  the  expediency  which  dictates  that  baptism 
should  usually  be  committed  to  the  preachers  of 
the  gospel,  does  not  bind  the  churches  at  all 
times  to  intrust  it  to  their  hands,  or  receive  it 
alone  from  them. 

That  our  brethren  will  not  think  our  views 
novel,  or  that  we  are  attempting  innovations 
upon  their  time  honored  doctrines,  we  will  quote 
from  the  oldest  Baptist  creed  ever  put  forth  in 
the  English  language — the  one  published  in 
London,  1643  : 

'The  person  designated  by  Christ  to  dis- 
pense baptism,  the  Scriptures  hold  forth  to  be 
a  disciple  ;  it  being  no  where  tied  to  a  particu- 
lar church  officer,  or  person  extraordinarily  sent 
— the  commission  enjoining  the  administration 
being  to  them  as  considered  disciples,  being 
men  able  to  preach  the  gospel.' — Art.  41. 

But  we  have  far  higher  and  older  authority 
than  this.  The  Scriptures  inform  us  that 
"  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  disciples.'^''^ 
It  was  to  his  disci]jles-\  that  the  Savior  said, 
'  Gro  ye,  therefore,  and  disciple  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  lo,  I  am 
with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.'  And  the  Apostle  says  to  the  Church. in 
Corinth,  '  Now  I  praise  you  brethren,  that  you 
remember  me  in  all  things,  and  keep  the  ordin- 
ances as  1  delivered  them  unto  you /if 

*  John  ix.  2.  f  Matt,  xxviii.  16.  X  Oor.  xi.  2. 


KEVIEW   OF    WALLER.  51 

The  cliurclies  have  not  transferred  baptism  to 
the  ministry.  This  they  could  not  do  without 
proving  recreant  to  the  trust  committed  of  hea- 
ven to  their  charge.  They  may  and  do  author- 
ize their  servants,  the  preachers  of  the  gospel, 
to  discharge  this  duty  for  them ;  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  they  must  always  authorize 
them  and  no  others  ;  or  that  they  cannot  receive 
it  when  administered  by  others.  Hence  the 
baptism  administered  by  the  pastor  or  bishop 
of  one  of  our  churches  is  received  without  hes- 
itation or  debate  by  the  others.  Hence,  too, 
the  baptism  of  Roger  Williams,  and  of  the  first 
church  in  Providence,  is  considered  as  valid  and 
as  scriptural  as  if  administed  by  the  Apostle 
Paul.  They  believed  and  were  baptized.  They 
were  first  disciples  and  then  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity.  They  were  doers  of  the 
law.-' 

Mr.  Benedict,  in  his  History  of  the  Baptists, 
has  aptly  remarked  : 

^  All  agree  that  it  is  an  unadvisable  meas- 
ure for  a  person  to  apply  to  unbaptized  minis- 
ers  to  lead  them  into  the  water  ;  but  after  they 
have  been  properly  immersed  on  a  profession 
of  their  faith,   it   is   generally    thought  that  it 


*  Roger  Williams  and  his  companions  were  Pedobaptists. 
From  reading  they  were  led  to  embrace  Baptist  sentiments. 
Williams  was  baptized  by  one  of  his  disciples,  and  then  he 
baptized  the  rest.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  first  Bap- 
tist Church  in  Rhode  Island. 


52  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMEESIONS. 

would  be  improper  to  immerse  them  a  second 
time.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  why  they  would 
notj  in  this  case,  come  under  the  head  of  Ana- 
baptists/ [Vol.  ii.,  p.  473.]  It  is  urged  by  some 
that  the  Pedobaptist  minister  does  not  admin- 
ister immersion  in  good  faith  and  that  "  what- 
soever is  not  of  faith,  is  sin."  This  may  be  true 
of  the  administrator — he  may  commit  sin  in 
the  case  supposed,  but  it  does  not  affect  the 
subject.  He  is  not  responsible  for  another's 
sins.  The  old  maxim  is  appropriateto  our  sub- 
ject:  Quod  non  dehuit fieri,  factum  -yaZe^,  that 
is,  what  ought  not  to  be  done,  is  nevertheless, 
valid  when  done.  Baptism,  as  we  demonstrated 
a  short  time  since,  is  a  solemn  j^rofession  of  re- 
ligion. The  believer  publicly  acknowledges  his 
allegiance  to  Christ — is  buried  with  Christ  in 
baptism,  and  rises  to  walk  in  newness  of  life — 
declares  that  he  is  dead  to  sin — his  baptism  is 
the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God. 
If  the  church  is  satisfied  that  all  this  is  true  of 
the  individual  who  has  received  the  ordinance 
at  the  hand  of  a  "  Reformer"  or  Pedobaptist,  it 
appears  to  us  that  she  cannot  deny  him  admis- 
sion to  membership.  The  commission  of  our 
Lord  is  not  only  preserved  in  spirit,  but  in  let- 
ter. The  whole  design  of  baptism  has  been 
clearly  met.  To  such  an  individual  there  re- 
maineth  no  more  baptism.  He  could  not  be 
baptized  according  to  the  commission,  nor  to  se- 
cure any  of  the  ends  contemplated  in  the  insti- 
tution of  the  ordinance. 


REVIEW   OF   WALLER.  53 

We  deem  it  unneceseary  to  say  more.  These 
views  are  submitted  with  much  diffidence,  and 
we  have  been  induced  to  give  them  only  because 
we  have  been  urged  to  do  so  by  respectable 
brethren  in  different  sections  of  the  West.  Al- 
though conscious  that  we  are  sustained  by  the 
great  majority  of  the  Baptists  now  and  in  time 
gone  by,  still  w^e  know  that  many,  eminent  for 
piety  and  learning,  entertain  opposite  opinions. 
But  it  is  a  matter  which  all  concur  in  declar- 
ing belongs  to  each  church,  without  question  or 
appeal — that  it  does  not  and  ought  not  to  involve 
matters  of  fellowship.  In  past  times,  it  has 
caused  no  divisions,  and  but  little  discussion 
among  the  Baptists ;  and,  it  is  confidently 
hoped  and  believed,  that  their  good  sense  and 
their  devotion  to  the  real  interests  of  Zion,  will 
restrain  eventhe  most  restless  spirits  from  ma- 
king it  now  a  cause  of  dissension.  Let  every 
thing  but  a  pure  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God 
yield  to  the  preservation  of  harmony  and  peace 
among  brethren.  It  is  good  and  pleasant  for 
such  to  dwell  together  in  unity." 

We  trust  the  reader  has  carefully  examined 
the  positions  and  defences  of  our  lamented  bro- 
ther. We  should  give  them  their  full  force  and 
value.  But  let  no  one  be  led  by  a  mistaken 
reverence  for  the  dead  to  yield  to  them  a  jot  or 
tittle  more  than  by  virtue  of  their  truthfulness 
they  may  claim.  Opinions  are  not  more  true 
when  he  who   uttered  them  is  dead,  than  they 

5- 


54  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

would  be  if  he  wer;Q  living.  Let  us,  therefore, 
neither  be  hindered  nor  biased  in  our  investiga- 
gations  by  this  circumstance.  The  question 
is  whether  a  church  of  Christ  should  regard 
and  receive  as  valid  baptism  an  immersion  con- 
ferred by  one  who  was  not  a  member  of  such 
a  churchj  and  without  authority  from  such  a 
church  ?  Eld.  Waller  states  it  thus  :  ''Wheth- 
er persons  baptized  upon  a  profession  of  gen- 
uine repentance  and  faith  by  a  Reformer  or  by 
a  Pedobaptist,  ought  on  such  baptism,  to  be 
received  as  members  of  Baptist  churches  ?"  If 
the  so-called  churches  of  Reformers  and  Pedo- 
baptists  are  true  and  genuine  scriptural  chur- 
ches of  Christ  there  can  be  no  dispute.  Their 
baptism  in  that  case  is  truly  valid.  If  Elder 
Waller  regarded  them  as  scriptural  churches, 
having  equal  authority  for  their  official  acts  with 
Baptist  churches,  then  our  controversy  must 
go  back  and  begin  at  this  point.  The  whole 
history  of  his  life,  however,  would  seem  to  con- 
tradict the  suggestion  that  he  entertained  any 
such  opinion,  and  if  he  did,  we  have  not  here 
the  space  to  lay  open  all  the  grounds  of  contro- 
versy upon  the  question.  What  is  a  true  church 
of  Christ.-''  I  shall,  therefore,  take  it  for  gran- 
ted that  when  Elder  Waller  speaks  of  church- 


*  The  reader  will  find  a  most  careful  aud  elaborate  exami- 
nati-in  of  this  question  in  all  its  details,  in  the  second  vol- 
me  of  Theodosia  Earnest ;  or,  Ten  Days'  Travel  in  Search 
of  the  Church. 


REVIEW    OF    WALLER.  55 

es  he  means  Baptist  cliurclies,  or  such  as  Bap- 
tists are  accustomed  to  regard  as  the  true  and 
genuine  -sdsible  churches  of  Christ,  according  to 
Scriptures.  Upon  this  understanding  he  shall 
himself  furnish  the  weapons  with  which  to  bat- 
ter down  and  grind  into  dust  his  own  conclu- 
sions. 

To  the  question,  whether  a  real  believer 
solemnly  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Grhost,  by  a  Reformer  or  Pedo- 
baptist,  has  been  truly  baptized  according  to  the 
commission  ;  he  says  :  "  Only  one  answer  can 
be  given,"  viz.,  "  that  his  baptism  is  strictly  in 
accordance  with  the  commission,  unless  the  com- 
mission prescribes  the  administrator  as  abso- 
lutely as  the  subject  and  the  mode.  So  our  in- 
vestigation is  now  limited  to  the  inquiry 
whether  the  great  commission  has  made  the 
validity  of  the  ordinance  depend  on ,the  admin- 
istration as  well  as  on  the  subject  and  the  mode." 
"To  a  certain  extent,"  he  says,  "  all  will  answer 
this  question  affirmatively."  Then,  we  ask  him, 
to  what  extent  ?  How  far  does  the  commission 
go  towards  determining  who  shall  be  baptizers.^ 
One  would  expect,  in  view  of  the  ultimate  con- 
clusion to  which  he  seeks  to  draw  us,  that  he 
would  at  least  attempt  to  show  that  the  com- 
mission either  does  not  determine  anything  at 
all  concerning  this  point,  or  that  it  determines 
that  those  not  members  of  a  true  church,  and 
without  any  authority  from  a  true  church,  are 


56  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

authorized  by  a  commission  to  baptize.  But 
he  says  no  such  thing.  He  does  not  intimate 
that  anything  Hke  this  is  true.  Not  at  all.  ''The 
difference  of  opinion/'  he  says,  "this,  consists  in 
viz.,  whether  the  administration  of  baptism  is 
limited  to  a  privileged  class  in  the  church  or 
not ;"  and  then  goes  on  to  discuss  the  question 
whether  the  church  can  authorize  any  but  a 
minister  to  confer  the  ordinance.  By  making 
this  issue  he  virtually  yields,  at  the  outset,  the 
point  about  which  we  are  contending.  Our 
question  is,  not  whether  baptism  may  be  con- 
ferred by  a  lay  member  in  the  church,  if  the 
church  should  authorize  him,  but  whether  it 
can  be  conferred  by  one  who  is  not  a  member 
at  all,  and  without  any  authority  whatever  from 
the  church.  ''To  this  comi:)lexion  it  must  come 
at  last,"  unless  we  take  the  ground  that  pedo- 
baptist  societies  are  true  and  genuine  churches 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  if  we  take  this  ground 
there  is  nothing  to  contend  about. 

"To  the  churches,"  he  says,  "are  commit- 
ted the  keys.  They  can  open  and  none  can 
shut.  They  can  shut  and  none  can  open.  The 
churches  are  the  highest  authority  under  Christ. 
They  are  not  dependent  on  the  ministry  for 
their  existence,  but  the  ministry  upon  the 
churches.  That  propriety  may  make  it  expedi- 
ent for  the  churches  to  assign  the  administra- 
tion of  baptism  to  their  ministers  or  servants,, 
so  far  from  being  denied  on  our  part,  is  most 


REVIEW   OF   WALLER.  57 

earnestly  and  strenuously  insisted  upon.  But 
the  expediency  which  dictates  that  baptism 
should  usually  be  committed  to  preachers  of 
the  gospel,  does  not  bind  the  churches  at  all 
times  to  intrust  it  to  their  hands  or  to  receive 
it  alone  from  them." 

Now  let  us  humbly  ask,  if  this  be  true  how 
can  pedobaptist  societies  or  pedobaptist  min- 
isters have  any  authority  to  administer  baptism 
unless  the  churches,  to  whom  in  the  Scrip- 
tures it  is  given,  should  transfer  it  to  them. 
But  this  Elder  Waller  declares  they  have  no 
right  to  do.  They  may  not,  he  says,  even 
transfer  it  to  their  own  ministers,  much  less 
to  those  who  have  no  sort  of  connection  with 
them,  and  over  whom  they  have  no  sort  of  con- 
trol. "  The  churches,"  he  says,  ''have  not  trans- 
ferred baptism  to  the  ministry.  This  they  could 
not  do  without  proving  recreant  to  the  trust 
committed  by  heaven  to  their  charge." 

Now  let  any  man  of  common  sense  decide, 
if  the  question  be  not  narrowed  down  to  this  : 
Can  a  church  of  Christ  transfer  to  one  who  is 
not  a  minister,  and  not  a  member  of  any  as- 
sembly which  she  recognizes  as  a  true  church 
of  Christ,  the  administration  of  baptism,  when 
she  cannot  even  transfer'it  to  her  own  ministry  ? 

If  her  own  minister  cannot  administer  bap- 
tism without  her  sanction,  how  can  it  be  given 
without  her  sanction  by  one  w^ho  is  not  even  a 
member  ? 


58  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMEKSIONS. 

But  now  if  it  be  said  that  the  whole  author- 
ity to  administer  baptism  being  in  the  church, 
she  can  authorize  whom  she  will  to  administer 
it  Let  ns  grant  it  for  a  moment,  though  it  is 
not  true  ;  and  then  the  question  is :  Has  she 
granted  the  right  to  pedobaptist  churches  or 
pedobaptist  ministers  ?  Would  she  grant  it 
even  should  they  be  fools  enough  to  ask  it  of 
her  ?  No  one  will  contend  that  she  has  con- 
ferred any  such  authority,  or  that  there  is  any 
sense  in  which  a  baptism  conferred  by  them  is 
conferred- by  the  authority  of  the  church,  to 
which  alone,  according  to  Elder  Waller's  own 
showing,  all  the  authority  in  the  premises  was 
committed — and  so  committed  that  she  could 
not  transfer  it  even  if  she  would. 

"  They,"  (the  churches,)  continues  our  au- 
thor, ^'  may  and  do  authorize  their  servants,  the 
preachers  of  the  gospel,  to  discharge  this  duty 
for  them  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  must 
always  authorize  them,  and  no  others,  or  that 
they  cannot  receive  it  when  administered  by 
others."  Let  us  admit  all  this  and  then  the 
question  v/ill  stand  thus :  Grranted  that  all  the 
authority  to  administer  baptism  is  committed 
by  Christ  to  the  church — granted  that  the 
church  may,  and  ordinarily  ought  to,  authorize 
baptism  to  be  administered  by  her  servants  the 
ministers — granted  that  she  may  authorize  oth- 
ers besides  her  ministers,  and  may  receive  bap- 
tism as  legal  and  scriptural  when  conferred  by 


REVIEW   OF   WALLER.  59 

others  besides  her  own  ministers.  Who  are 
these  others  ?  Our  author  had  been  arguing 
to  show  that  private  members  of  a  church  might, 
by  the  church,  be  authorized  to  administer  bap- 
tism as  well  as  ministers.  But  he  had  not  tried 
to  prove  that  they,  much  less  those  who  are  not 
members  at  all,  could  confer  valid  baptism  with- 
out the  authority  of  the  church  ;  and  it  is  cer- 
tain that  pedobaptist  immersions  are  conferred 
without  such  authority.  These  "others,^'  there- 
fore, must  be  private  members  whom  the  church 
had  authorized  to  baptize  without  ordaining 
them  to  preach. 

To  these  the  church  must  be  restricted,  un- 
less she  has  a  right  to  confer  the  authority  to 
administer  the  most  solemn  rite  of  that  visible 
kingdom  in  which  she  is  the  executive  of  Christ, 
upon  those  who  despise  and  reject  that  rite — up- 
on those  who  are  not  members  of  that  kingdom 
— upon  those,  of  whom  as  a  church,  she  has  no 
knowledge — over  whom  she  can  exercise  no  dis- 
cipline and  exert  no  sort  of  church  control — up- 
on those  whom,  if  they  were  members,  and  thus 
within  the  reach  of  her  discipline,  she  would  be 
bound  at  once  to  exclude  from  her  communion, 
as  teachers  of  false  doctrine,  and  perverters  of 
Christ's  ordinance. 

Grant  that  the  right  of  Baptism  is  in  the 
church,  g,nd  that  she  may  confer  it  on  whom  she 
will,  or  receive  it  from  whom  she  will,  she  must 
nevertheless  be  r«stri6ted  in  the  exercise  of  this 


60  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

liberty,  by  her  constititiitional  limits.  And 
even  if  it  were  true,  as  Elder  Waller  states  in 
the  beginning  of  his  Essay,  that  "  there  is  no 
express  precept  or  example  to  guide  us  in  our 
deliberations/'  yet  common  sense  itself  would 
teach  that  neither  a  church  nor  any  other  close 
society,  could  with  any  show  of  propriety  autho- 
rize or  permit  men  to  stand  without  and  confer 
in  its  behalf  the  rites  they  would  not  themselves 
receive.  If  the  question  had  no  connection 
with  religion,  every  man  would  confess  the  ab- 
surdity of  such  a  course.  None  of  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world  would  be  guilty  of  such  folly.  No 
secular  society  is  found  guilty  of  such  folly. 
"The  children  of  this  world  are  wiser  in  their 
generation  than  the  children  of  light."'  But  if 
there  was  not  common  sense  enough  within  the 
visible  kingdom  of  Christ  to  guide  the  churches 
in  this  matter,  is  there  nothing  in  the  written 
constitution  of  that  kingdom  to  direct  them  up- 
on whom  they  may  or  may  not,  confer  the  right 
to  administer  baptism. 

Whatever  right  the  churches  have,  they  have 
as  clmrches,  as  the  executive  charged  with  the 
administration  of  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  the 
visible  kingdom  of  Christ.  And  in  the  exercise 
of  these  rights,  they  cannot  go  beyond  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  under  which  they  exist,  and 
which  they  are  to  execute.  This  constitution 
and  these  laws,  we  have  in  the  New  Testament. 
If,  therefore,   there  can  be  Jfeund  in  that  doc- 


TvEVIEW    OF   WALLER.  61 

ument,  any  precept  or  example  upon  this  point 
— or  if  there  be  anything  there  from  v/hich  we 
may  fairly  and  legitimately  infer  anything  defi- 
nitely concerning  the  will  of  the  King  upon 
this  suhject,  by  these  the  churches  must  be  go- 
verned. Now,  let  us  suppose  for  a  moment,  that 
we  have  no  precept  and  no  example.  What 
would  be  the  nature  of  the  inferences  we  would 
compelled  to  draw  from  the  teachings  of  the 
Word  ?  Elder  Waller  has  shown  that  the  right 
to  confer  baptism  was  given  to  the  churches — 
and  that  the  churches  are  at  liberty  to  author- 
ize their  ministers,  and  ''  others,"  to  perform  it 
for  them.  Our  question  is,  vjJiat  '^others  ?"  Are 
they  to  be  in  the  churches,  or  out  of  them.  Are 
fhey  to  be  persons  who  have  themselves  obeyed 
the  Lord,  and  been  baptized,  or  those  who  re- 
ject the  ordinance,  and  condemn  and  abuse 
those  who  insist  on  its  obedience  ?  Now,  we 
humbly  submit,  that  if  there  were  nothing  to 
the  contrary  in  the  Word,  there  would  be  a 
very  strong  inference,  from  the  simple  fact  that 
the  selection  of  the  administrator  was  left  to 
the  churches — that  he  was  at  least  to  be  a 
member  of  the  churches.  If  the  Lord  had  inten- 
ded that  it  should  have  been  performed  by  those 
outside  the  churches,  he  would  most  --probably 
have  left  it  to  those  outside,  to  select  the  ad- 
ministrator. 

But  it  is  true  that  we   have  neither  precept 
nor  example  on  this  subject  in  the  Word.     Eld- 

6 


62  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

er  Waller  says  so,  and  yet  he  goes  right  on  to 
say,  ''  The  primitive  practice  was  clear.  The 
path  in  which  the  holy  men  of  old  walked  is  so 
plain,  that  a  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool, 
need  not  err  therein.''  One  would  naturally 
expect,  after  this  declaration,  that  he  would 
attempt  to  show  that  ''  the  primitive  practice" 
was  what  he  now  recommends — that  those  "ho- 
ly men''  did  habitually,  or  least  occasionally, 
send  out  of  the  church  for  a  baptizer,  or  recog- 
nize as  baptism  the  immersion  of  a  Jewish  pros- 
elyte by  a  Jewish  priest.  But,  strange  to  tell, 
he  only  declares  that  "then  [that  is,  in  Apos- 
tolic times,]  all  who  believed  and  were  baptized, 
were  admitted  into  the  church.  The  commis- 
sion of  the  Savior  was,  Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  etc.  And 
further  on  he  says,  "  The  person  designated  by 
Christ  to  dispense  baptism,  the  Scriptures  hold 
forth  to  be  a  disciple. '  "  The  Scriptures  in- 
form us  that  Jesus  baptized  not,  but  his  disci- 
ples. "•••"  It  was  to  his  disciples  that  the  Savior 
said,  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  disciple  all  nations, 
baptizing  them,  etc." 

Now,  if  it  be  true,  as  he  says,  that  in  those 
days  all  who  became  disciples,  were  baptized  and 
admitted  into  the  church  ;  aud  if  it  true  that 
the  person  designated  by  our  Savior  to  dispense 
baptism  was  a  disci23le,  then  the  person  designa- 
ted to  dispense  baptism  was  bapatized  member 

*  John  ix.  2. 


REVIEW    OF    WALLER.  63 

of  Christ's  visible  church.  So  we  have  both 
precept  and  example,  according  to  the  showing 
of  Elder  Waller  himself;  and  all  he  could  have 
meant  by  saying  we  have  neither,  is  that  there 
are  neither  which  favors  the  position  which  he 
set  out  to  establish.  This  is  most  certainly  true. 
On  that  side  there  is  neither  precept,  example, 
nor  any  fair  and  reasonable  inference.  And  but 
for  the  conviction  wdiich  at  one  time  took  posses- 
sion of  the  minds  of  many  Baptists,  that  Pedo- 
baptist  societies  were  true  and  valid  churches 
of  Christ,  the  idea  that  they  could  confer  a  val- 
id baptism  would  not  have  been  entertained 
by  any  Baptist  church.  Elder  Waller  has  shown 
us  that  the  persons  designated  by  Christ  in  the 
Scriptures,  to  administer  baptism,  were  disciples, 
and  that  these  disciples  were  baptized  church 
members.  And  now,  what  ground  has  he  left 
that  he  can  stand  upon  ?  His  argument,  di- 
vested of  matters  which  have  no  bearing  upon 
the  question  before  us,  amounts  to  this  :  The 
commission  w^as  given  to  "  the  churclies."  "  The 
churches  may  appoint  their  ministers,  "or  oth- 
ers," to  administer  the  baptism  which  the  com- 
mission requires.  But  these  "others"  must  be 
laptized  disciples;  for,  "the  person  designated 
by  Christ  to  dispense  baptism,  the  Scriptures 
hold  forth  to  be  a  disciple,"  and  "the  primitive 
j)ractice  is  clear"  that  "  all  who  believed  and 
were  baptized,  were  admitted  into  the  church. 

Let  us,  to  test   the  value   of  the  argument, 
reduce  it  to  a  svllomsm  :   ' 


64  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

The  autliority  to  baptize  is  not  in  the  minis- 
ters, but  in  the  churches.  The  churches  can 
authorize  their  ministers  or  other  members,  toi 
perform  it. 

Therefore,  the  churches  can  authorize  those 
who  are  neither  ministers  nor  members,  but  un- 
baptized  rejectors  of  the  ordinance  to  perform- 
it  !    '■  Oh,  most  lame  and  impotent  conclusion." 

And  thus  does  Elder  Waller  himself  furnish 
the  weapons  to  destroy  his  own  defences. 


REVIEW    OF    FULLER.  65 


CHAPTER  IV. 

REVIEAY    OF    R.    FULLER. 


-,  Jan.  15,  1857. 


My  Dear  Brother. — I  beg  you  will  give  me  your 
views,  as  to  re  baptizing  persons,  who  have  been 
baptized  (immersed)  by  Pedobaptist  ministers.  I 
do  not  ask  this  as  a  question  of  theoretical  theology. 
I  am  deeply  interested  in  the  matter,  as  an  urgent 
practical   question.     I   am   a   Baptist  minister,    and 

pastor  of  the church,  in  the  State  of . 

My  wife  was  member  of  the  Methodist  church,  is 
truely  converted,  and,  on  a  profession  of  her  faiih  in 
Christ,  was  baptized  by  a  Methodist.  She  wishes  to 
unite  with  th^  Baptists  ;  but  she  says  she  has  been 
baptized,  and  dares  not  repeat  the  ordinance.  The 
Church  requires  her  re-baptism.  You  see  how  pain- 
ful is  my  situation.  Give  me  your  views  on  this 
subject,  and  oblige  one  who  truly  loves  you. 
Yours  in  the  best  of  bonds, 


Baltimore,  Jan.  20,  '57. 
My  Dear  Brother. — I  sympathize  sincerely  with 
you,  and   pray  that   God   may  guide  your  wife   and 
self  in  this  important  matter.     I  know  how  to  appre- 
ciate the  feelings  of  your  wife,  for  the  question  is  not 

6* 


66  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

a  new  point  with  me.  I  was  a  member  of  a  Pedo- 
baptist  church,  and  was  immersed.  On  joinino^  that 
Church,  I  required  it  of  the  pastor,  for,  as  a  Greek 
scholar,  I  was  satisfied  that  baptism  was  immersion. 
When  conviction  compelled  me  to  become  a  Baptist, 
I  reflected  on  the  subject,  was  baptized  again,  and 
for  two  reasons  :  First,  I  then  knew  that  I  had  never 
been  converted  to  God  before.  And,  Second,  My 
first  baptism  was  clearly  irregular.  The  first  preach- 
ers were  themselves  baptized,  and  baptism  by  an 
unbaptized  administrator  appeared  to  me  manifestly 
irregular.  I,  therefore,  resolved  to  correct  this  irre- 
gularity, and  leave  nothing  informal  in  this  solemn 
act. 

Your  wife,  however,  does  not  regard  the  matter 
in  this  light ;  and,  therefore,  the  enquiry  arises, 
**  Ought  the  Church  to  require  her  re-baptism  ?"  I 
think  not.  The  distinction  between  an  act  which  is 
informal  and  an  act  which  is  null  and  void,  all  will 
admit.  A  marriage  may  not  be  performed  by  one 
every  way  qualified  according  to  the  provisions  of  a 
civil  statute,  but  it  would  be  monstrous  to  pronounce 
it  void,  and  their  children  illegitimate,  on  account  of 
this  want  of  some  qualification  in  the  person  who 
officiated.  If  the  parties  acted  in  good  faith,  and 
took  upon  them  the  marriage  vows,  shall  the^r  co- 
habitation be  declared  fornication,  and  iheir  children 
bastards,  because  a  magistrate,  for  example,  had  not 
complied  with  some  ceremony  specified  by  law  as  in- 
cumbent on  magistrates?  Certainly  not>  The 
magistrate  may  be  punished,  but  the  marriage  is  not 
null  and  void.  Let  us  now  apply  this  to  the  matter 
in  hand,  and  enquire  if  the  baptism  of  a  believer  is 
null  and  void,  because  the  officiating  minister  has 
neglected  his  own  duty  as  to  this  ordinance. 


REVIEW    OF    FULLER.  67 

Now  there  is  one  argument  wLich,  of  itself,  goes 
far  to  settle  this  question.  It  is  that  if  no  baptism  be 
valid  without  an  administrator,  whose  b:^ptism  is 
regular,  then  there  can  be  no  valid  baptism.  The 
validity  of  b^iptism  would  depend  on  an  unbroken 
succession  of- regularly  baptized  administrators  from 
the  days  of  the  apostles ;  and  if  there  be  a  defect  in 
thi^?  chain,  that  defect  violates  all  the  subsequent 
baptisms.  The  oft  exposed  fiction  of  the  apostolic 
succession  is  ridiculous  enough,  but  the  baptisiical 
succession  is  even  more  puerile. 

It  may  be  replied,  however,  that  this  argument, 
though  a  reductio  ad  absurdum,  only  demonstrates 
that  there  can  be  no  valid  baptism  ;  it  does  not  prove 
that  baptism  by  a  Pedo^aptist  minister  is  valid.  Let 
us,  then,  look  at  the  point.  I  think  such  a  baptism, 
though  irregular,  yet  valid.  If  the  candidate  is  dis- 
satistied,  the  ordinance  may  be  correctly  adminis- 
tered. "  Baptism  is  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
towards  God."  If  the  disciple  have  not  this  answer, 
let  him  have  it.  But,  in  a  case  like  that  of  your 
wife,  the  party  should  not  be  compelled  to  repeat 
the  act.  Such  is  my  opinion,  and  my  reasons  are 
these  : 

1.  The  Commission  says:  «*  He  that  believeth  and 
is  bapiized,  shall  be  saved."  The  party  has  believed 
and  been  baptized.  Here  are  two  personal  acts,  one 
internal,  the  other  external.  A  defect  in  the  admin- 
istrator of  bap  ism,  can  no  more  invalidate  baptism 
than  any  imperfection  in  the  preacher  can  nullily  the 
faith. 

2.  Consider  the  tjise  and  design  of  baptism.  It  is 
a  puhlic  profesi-ion  of  allegiance  to  Christ.  It  is 
**  putting  on  Christ."  "Were  ye  bapiized  in  the 
name  of  Paul,  viz. :  **  Did  you  confess  yourselves  as 


6S  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

saved  by  Paul  and  devoted  to  him  ?"  Now  the 
party  has  made  this  public  profession  of  loyalty  to 
Jesus. 

3.  Reflect  upon  the  metaphors  by  which  baptism 
is  represented,  such  as  "Buried,"  "Planted,"  etc. 
Has  not  p11  this  been  realized  ? 

4.  In  the  New  Testament,  baptism  is  always  men- 
tioned as  a  personal  duty,  like  repentance  and  fnitb. 
The  admini-^irator  is  never  referred  to  as  at  all  afF^ct- 
ing  the  validity  of  the  act.  This  idea,  that  a  minis- 
ter confers  any  virtue  on  an  ordinance,  whether  bap- 
tism or  the  supper,  is  a  remnant  of  Popery.  As  to 
baptism,  this  supersiitution  goes  beyond  Popery. 
For  while  the  Cliurch  of  Rome  contends  ria^orously 
for  the  power  of  the  piest  to  consecrate  everything, 
it  yet  admits  the  validity  of  bap'.ism  by  a  layman. 
In  referring  to  baptism,  the  inspired  writers  lay  no 
sort  of  stress  on  the  administrator.  They  never 
allude  to  him  except  as  a  matter  of  history.  They 
simply  mention  the  fact  of  baptism  as  they  do  of 
conversion.  The  eunuch  was  baptized  by  a  deacon. 
As  swon  as  converted,  the  most  convenient  water  and 
administrator  were  employed.  The  reference  to  the 
"baptism  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea," 
shows  how  little  the  Holy  Spirit  regards  the  admin- 
istrator For  there,  the  only  ministry  was  that  of 
the  elements. 

5.  Where  would  the  requirement  of  qualifications 
in  the  minister  terminate?  Suppose  he  had  been 
immer>ed,  but  not  with  the  same  formula  used  by 
us,  say,  "in  the  name  of  Jesus,"  and  not  "in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  "  Would 
this  invalidate  all  baptisms  performed  by  him  ?  If 
so,  the  ordinance  by  the  apostles  was  void  ;  for  they 
had  only  John's   baptism,  which  was   certainly  not 


REVIEW   OF  'fuller.  69 

with  the  formula  prescribed  in  the  Commission. 
Suppose  a  minister  had  been  immersed,  but  holds 
some  doctrine  "which  we  regard  as  erroneous.  Does 
this  vitiate  the  baptism  administers  ?  Surely  heresy 
as  to  truth  is  at  least  as  fatal  as  error,  as  to  an  ordin- 
ance. But  where  would  the  scheme  lead  us  ?  Who 
shall  decide  what  error  vitiates  and  what  not  ?  I 
fear  some  churches  would  not  be  satisfied  to  receive 
a  member  from  another  Baptist  church,  because  he 
had  been  baptized  by  a  minister  who  did  not  hold 
election,  or  perseverance,  or  limited  atonement,  or 
close  communion.  And  how  monstrous  would  this 
be.  Lastly,  suppose  a  minister  proves  an  apostate, 
are  the  baptisms  he  administers  all  void  ?  This  has 
never  been  pretended  ;  and  shall  we  be  so  bigoted 
and  superstitious,  as  to  attach  more  importance  to  an 
error  about  an  ordinance  than  we  do  to  gross  immor- 
ality, or  down  right  hypocrisy  ? 

These,  my  dear  brother,  are  my  sentiments.  They 
are  written  in  haste,  but  were  formed  after  much 
thought  and  delibeiation.  The  matter  has  often  dis- 
turbed churches,  but  I  hope  the  day  is  at  hand  when 
these  controversies  will  forever  cease. 
Yours  in  the  Lord  Jesus, 

R.  FULLER. 


It  is,  I  believe,  very  generally  conceded 
among  the  Baptists  of  the  South,  that  when 
Elder  Richard  Fuller,  of  Baltimore,  has  made 
an  argument  for  or  against  any  position,  it  may 
be  regarded  as  the  very  best  that  can  be  made. 


VO  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMEESIONS. 

What  his  capacious  intellect  and  cultivated 
mind,  with  all  the  advantages  of  the  most 
thorough  mental  discipline,  and  his  long  and 
large  experience  cannot  achieve,  no  other  need 
attempt. 

The  surprise  and  sorrow,  w^hich  I  could  not 
but  feel  on  reading  his  letter  to  the  Baptist 
minister,  whose  wife  desires  to  become  a  mem- 
ber of  a  Baptist  church  upon  her  Metliodist  im- 
mersion, is,  therefore,  somewhat  counterbal- 
anced by  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  we 
have  presented  to  us,  in  all  probability,  the 
very  best  argument  Avhich  is  likely  ever  to  be 
made  in  favor  of  the  reception  of  members  by 
Baptist  churches  upon  their  Pedobaptist  im- 
mersion. And  if  I  shall  be  able  to  show;  that 
even  this  does  ngt  weigh  the  value  of  one  poor 
straw,  the  question  may  regarded  as  settled  for- 
ever. And  in  view  of  its  great  practical  im- 
portance to  the  unity,  order,  and  purity  of  the 
churches  of  Christ,  I  feel  impelled  at  least  to 
make  an  effort  to  do  this.  Whether  I  shall 
succeed  the  reader  must  determine, 

Tliere  are  some  duties  which  the  Master  re- 
quires of  individual  christians ,  as  such,  and 
others  of  the  churches,  as  such.  Tlie  duty 
under  consideration  is  a  church  duty.  The 
question  is : 

Ought  a  church  to  require  the  hajytism  of  an 
applicant  for  membership,  ivho  is  said  to  have 
been  already  baptized  by  a  Pedobaptist  minis- 
ter  1 


REVIEW    OF    FULLER.  71 

Elder  Fuller  says,  No,  provided  the  candi- 
date be  satisfied  ;  and  Yes,  provided  he  be  7iot 
satisfied.  I  will  venture  to  differ  with  Elder 
F.,  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  satisfaction  or  dis- 
satisfaction of  the  applicant,  has  nothing  at  all 
to  do  ivlth  the  decision  of  the  question.  It  is  a 
question  for  the  church,  and  not  for  the  candi- 
date to  decide.  The  question  is,  whether  the 
ceremony  which  has  been  performed  was  true 
and  scriptural  christian  baptism.  If  it  was,  it 
must  not  be  repeated,  for  Christ  requires  a 
christian  to  be  baptized  hut  07ice.  Now,  it 
either  was  or  it  was  not,  and  that  quite  inde- 
pendently of  any  opinion  which  the  recipient 
may  have  come  to  entertain  upon  the  subject. 
This  is  self-evident.  For  to  suppose  the  con- 
trary would  involve  us  in  the  absurdity  of  be- 
lieving that  the  man  had  been  rightly  baptized 
so  long  as  he  thought  so,  and  that  he  had  7iot 
been,  so  soon  as  he  should  have  come  to  think 
differently.  I  am  baptized  to-day.  I  think 
that  it  is  rightly  done,  I  therefore  am  entitled 
to  admission  to  a  Baptist  church.  I  meet  some 
friend  to-night,  who  suggests  a  doubt  as  to  the 
proper  performance  of  the  ceremony.  To-mor- 
row my  opinion  has  changed  ;  and  now  I  am 
no  longer  entitled  to  membership.  Let  me  ask 
Elder  Fuller,  if  the  Church  of  Christ  is  to 
change  her  opinion  of  what  is  right  and  valid 
baptism  every  time  I  may  thus  change  mine  ? 
Two  persons  are  baptized  by  the  same  minister, 


72  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMEESIONS. 

and  under  similar  circumstances  :  one  becomes 
dissatisfied,  and  the  other  continues  to  regard 
it  as  true  baptism  ?  Will  the  cliurch  say  that 
one  was  baptized  and  the  other  was  not  ?  Can 
truth  thus  contradict  herself,  or  veer  about  with 
every  wind  of  individual  conceit  ? 

If  the  candidate  may  determine  for  her  wlio 
are  competent  administrators,  he  may  deter- 
mine for  her  who  are  competent  subjects  of  bap- 
tism, and  wdiat  is  the  proper  act  of  baptism, 
and  so  that  he  be  satisied  the  church  need  not 
ask  or  care  whether  he  was  sprinkled  when  a 
babe  or  immersed  as  a  believer.  If  he  has  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience,  that  is,  according 
to  Elder  Fuller's  exposition,  if  he  really  thinks 
he  has  been  properly  baptized  that  is  all-suffi- 
cient. 

There  surely  is  something  which  constitutes  a 
true  and  genuine  scriptural  baptism.  And 
where  that  something  has  taken  place,  a  church 
must  recognize  it  as  christian  baptism,  no  mat- 
ter what  the  candidate  for  membership  may 
have  come  to  think  about.  And  where  that 
something  has  not  taken  place,  the  church  can 
recognize  no  substitiite  for  it,  although  not 
merely  the  candidate,  but  all  the  world  beside 
should  believe  and  say  that  it  would  do  as 
well.  And  what  this  something  is,  the  church 
must  learn /rom  the  ivord  of  God,  and  not  from 
the  candidate.  She  is  not,  as  the  administrator 
and  guardian  of  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  to 


REVIEW  OF   FULLER,  73 

send  out  to  one  not  yet  admitted  to  her 
membership,  and  ask  him  to  decide /or  lier  what 
is  essential  to  true  Christian  baptism,  and  be 
governed  by  his  opinion  rather  than  her  otvn. 
Yet  this  is  what  she  virtually  does,  as  often  as 
ehe  receives  or  refuses  to  receive  a  Pedobaptist 
immersion,  according  as  the  candidate  is  satis- 
fied or  dissatisfied  with  it. 

Thus  much  by  way  of  divesting  the  subject 
of  an  incidental  encumbrance  which  only  tends 
to  distract  the  mind  from  the  true  issue.  Now 
let  us  see  what  that  true  issue  is. 

The  Church  has  a  question  to  decide  for  her- 
self, a  most  important  'practical  question.  That 
is,  whether  an  immersion  administered  by  one 
who  has  never  himself  submitted  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christ  and  without  the  authority  of 
any  church  of  baptized  believers,  is  true  and 
genuine  Christian  baptism  according  to  the 
Scriptures. 

If  it  be,  she  violates  the  order  of  Christ  if 
ehe  repeat  it.  If  it  be  not,  she  equally  violates 
his  order  if  she  receive  one  thus  falsely  bap- 
tized without  giving  him  true  baptism.  It  is 
aquestion  of  official  duty,  and  must  be  decided 
not  by  the  whims  of  the  applicant,  but  by  the 
law  of  the  King. 

Elder  Fuller  does  not  however  seem  to  real- 
ize this.  He  thinks  the  baptism  may  be  so 
irregular  as  to  demand  a  re-haptism  for  its  cor- 
rection, as  in  his  own  case,  and  yet  be  valid 
7 


74  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS, 

baptism  I  And  his  account  of  the  matter 
shows  into  what  strange  inconsistencies  even 
great  and  good  men  may  fall  when  they  stand 
arrayed  against  the  truth.  The  author  tells  U8 
he  had  himself  been  baptized  by  a  Pedobap- 
tist,  but  when  conviction  drove  him  to  the 
Baptist  Church,  he  saw  that  "  the  first  preach^ 
>ers  were  themselves  baptized  ;  and  baptism  by 
an  unbaptized  administrator  appeared  to  him 
manifestly  irregular!'     ''  I  therefore,''  he  says, 

RESOLVED  TO  CORRECT  THIS  IRREGULARITY,  and 

leave  nothing  informal  in  this  solemn  act." 

Now  the  inconsistency  to  which  I  refer  is 
this  1  Eld.  Fuller  thinks  it  very  important  that 
in  his  case  the  wrong  shall  be  made  right.  He 
will  not  give  the  sanction  of  his  example  to 
perpetrate  this  disorder  in  the  churches  :  he  will 
personally  do  all  that  he  can  to  correct  the  ir- 
regularity ;  yet  he  seems  to  think  the  official 
sanction  of  a  Cliurch  of  Jesus  Christ  is  of  so 
much  less  importance  than  that  of  his  individ^ 
ual  example  that  he  does  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  she  ought  not  "  to  correct  the  irregularity" 
as  he  had  done.  It  was  right  for  Eld.  Fuller. 
It  was  important  for  Eld.  Fuller  that  in  Ma 
case  "  nothing  should  be  informal  in  the  solemn 
act."  But  it  is  of  so  little  consequence  to 
others,  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  to  the  order  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  or  the  welfare  of  the  Baptist 
Churches,  that  he  thinks  ^A<;?/  may  very  properly 
give  their  united  and  official  sanction  to  just 


REVIEW   OF   FULLER.  75 

euch  irregularities  as  often  as  they  may  be 
desired  1 

A  stranger  might  on  reading  Eld.  Fuller's 
letter  be  almost  led  to  ask,  who  can  E.  Fuller 
be  that  he  should  fancy  it  so  important  for 
him  to  set  right  what  he  so  readily  advises  the 
churches  to  leave  wrong  ? 

But  let  it  pass.  I  wish  now  to  consider  the 
distinction  which  the  writer  so  ingeniously 
makes  between  a  baptism  that  is  invalid  and 
one  which  is  merely  irregular.  I  grant  that 
there  may  be  irregularities  which  do  not  invali- 
date the  ordinance,  but  it  is  self-evident  that 
they  must  not  be  of  such  a  character  as  to 
affect  what  is  essential  to  its  scriptural  admin- 
istration. An  irregularity  wliich  makes  the 
baptism  unscripturalj  makes  it  invalid.  What 
the  churches  have  therefore  to  determine  ii.' 
these  cases  is  simply  this  :  Is  the  baptism  of 
Christ's  kingdom  in  the  Scriptures  required  to 
be  administered  by  those  who  have  theinselves 
received  it  ?  If  it  be,  then  without  some  spe- 
cial provision  to  the  contrary,  others  are  by  that 
requirement  fm^hidden  to  administer  it.  Just 
as  the  law  requiring  the  baptism  of  believers 
forbids  the  baptism  of  those  who  do  not  be- 
lieve. And  if  forbidden  to  others  it  must  be 
invalid  when  performed  by  them. 

Now  let  us  go  to  the  Book  and  ask,  Who  are 
required  to  administer  baptism  Just  as  we  are 


76  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

accustomed  to  go  to  it  to  learn  who  are  to  he 
baptized. 

1.  "Go  ye  and  teach  all  nationSj  baptizing 
tliera."  Who  are  these  ye  ?  baptized  or  un- 
baptized  ?  Eld.  Fuller  says,  they  "  were  hap- 
iized."  Is  any  anthority  given  elsewhere  to 
any  others  who  were  7iot  baptized  ?  No  one 
will  say  so.  Is  there  any  example  of  any  one 
baptizing  who  had  not  been  baptized  ?  Eld. 
Fuller  cannot  find  one.  How  then  with  this 
law  given  to  the  baptized,  and  without  one 
solitary  precept  or  one  single  example  contra- 
vening it,  can  it  be  pretended  that  it  was  ever 
permitted  to  any  other. 

Well  might  Eld.  Fuller  ask,  as  he  does, 
(page  230  of  his  invaluable  book  on  baptism 
and  communion.)  '^  WHAT  WOULD  BE 
THOUGHT  OF  A  MINISTER  WHO 
SHOULD  GO  ABOUT  PREACHNG  THE 
COMMISSION  AND  "BAPTIZING,  AND 
YET  HIMSELF  REMAIN  UNBAPTIZED  ? 
Yet  in  the  letter  before  us  he  talks  as  though 
the  commission  left  it  an  open  question  as  to 
whether  the  men  who  preached  and  baptized 
should  be  themselves  baptized  or  not.  Eld. 
Fuller  says,  page  117  of  his  book,  "  27ie  only 
authority  to  baptize  any  body  is  the  commission." 
This  is  true  ;  and  if  so,  it  must  be  equally 
true  that  the  commission  is  the  only  authority 
to  any  body  to  baptize,  and  that,  as  he  himself 
admitS;  was  given  to  the  baptized. 


REVIEW   OF   FULLER.  77 

2.  Eld.  Fuller  says,  "  consider  the  design  of 
baptism."  I  have  considered  it,  and  am  com- 
pelled to  the  conviction  that  the  great  practi- 
cal object  which  baptism  was  intended  to  ac- 
complish could  only  be  accomplished  w^hen 
administered  by  one  already  in  the  kingdom 
and  acting  under  the  legal  authority  of  the 
kingdom.  The  design  of  baptism,  so  far  as  it 
affects  the  relation  which  the  baptized  sustains 
to  the  churches  is  initiation  into  the  body  of 
Christ's  visible  people.  It  makes  him  a  mem- 
ber of  Christ's  visible  kingdom.  A  particular 
church,  as  the  executive  body  in  the  kingdom, 
must  be  composed  of  those  who  are  members 
of  the  kingdom.  He  who  has  professed  his 
faith  in  Christ  and  has  been  baptized,  is  regar- 
ded by  the  churches  as  iriitiated  :  and  it  is  on 
this  ground  alone  that  he  is  regarded  as  eligi- 
ble to  membership  in  any  church.  But  it  is 
evident  that  this  ceremony  of  initiation  to  be 
a  valid  one,  must  be  performed  according  to 
the  law  of  the  kingdom,  and  by  those  properly 
authorized  to  administer  that  law.  Now  if 
baptism  be  the  door  of  entrance,  it  is  certain 
that  the  unbaptized  have  not  come  in.  They 
being  out  of  the  kingdom  can  have  no  authority 
in  it.  They  cannot  stand  outside  of  the  king- 
dom and  thrust  others  in.  No  organization  in 
the  world  would  be  so  silly  as  to  leave  the  work 
of  making  and  initiating  its  members  to  those 
who  refused,  themselves,  to  be  initiated.     There 


78  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

must  be  a  profession  of  faith,  and  this  not 
made  to  the  world,  not  to  some  priest  of  Jupi- 
ter, not  to  some  lodge  of  Odd  Fellows,  or  Di- 
vision of  the  Sons  of  Temperance  :  not  to  a 
class-leader  or  even  to  a  society  of  good  men. 
It  must  be  made  to  a  ChurcJi  of  Christy  or  to 
some  one  duly  authorized  by  a  church  to  receive 
it,  and  him,  in  consequence  of  it.  Then  there 
must  be  immersion,  performed,  not  by  a  Jewish 
priest,  or  a  disciple  of  Joe  Smith,  or  a  mere 
pious  man  without  legal  authority  ;  but  it  must 
be  by  one  authorized  under  the  laws  of  the 
kingdom  to  administer  it.  Any  act  of  baptism 
which  is  not  a  recognition  of  the  person  bap- 
tized as  henceforth  one  of  the  members  of  the 
visible  kingdom,  is  deficient  in  the  very  thing 
which  is  essential  to  the  design  of  baptism.  If 
it  does  not  initiate  him,  it  has  failed  of  its  ob- 
ject, and  he  is  no  more  ready  to  be  received 
into  a  particular  church  than  if  it  had  not  been 
peiformed.  Now  when  a  baptism  is  performed 
by  a  Pedobaptist,  it  is  designed  to  initiate  him 
into  a  Pedohaptist  society.  It  is  so  understood, 
both  by  the  administrator  and  the  subject  of  it. 
It  does  what  it  is  intended  to  do  and  nothing 
more  ;  and  when  a  Baptist  Church  recognizes 
it  as  a  valid  baptism,  she  of  necessity  recognizes 
that  society  as  equally  ioith  herself  a  part  of 
the  visible  kingdom.  They  stand  on  the  same 
ground  and  possess  the  same  authority. 

This  design  is^  of  itseLf^  enough  to  invalidate 


REVIEW   OF   FULLER.  79 

tlie  performance.  So  mncli  so  that  if  Eld.  Ful- 
ler himself — a  regular  Baptist  minister,  and, 
as  he  thinks,  tivice  baptized — if  even  he  should 
baptize  a  person  with  the  express  understanding 
that  the  ceremony  was  performed  for  the  pur- 
pose  of  making  him  a  member  of  a  Methodist 
society,  I  would  nol,  nor  do  I  believe  that  any 
Baptist  church  in  all  the  land  would  recognize 
it  as  valid  baptism. 

Thus  much  for  "  the  design."  It  was  not  as 
Eld.  Fuller  seems  to  suppose,  merely  to  sym- 
bolize a  burial  or  a  washing  away  of  sins.  The 
Lord  selected  and  commanded  a  ceremony  of 
initiation  which  did  indeed  most  beautifully  set 
forth  the  fact  that  the  initiated  was  now  un- 
der the  most  solemn  obligations  to  live  a  new 
life,  by  representing  his  former  self  as  dead  and 
buried,  and  to  be  pure  in  heart,  by  representing 
him  as  free  from  all  defilement.  But  these 
were  not  the  practical  result  to  be  accomplish- 
ed ;  that  was  to  take  him  into  the  visible 
kingdom  of  Christ,  and  make  him  externally 
and  formally  a  fellow-citizen  with  the  saints 
of  Christ.  It  was  just  the  equivalent  of  the 
oath  of  allegiance  by  which  a  foreigner  becomes 
a  citizen  among  ourselves.  He  may  be  a  good 
man  :  he  may  love  his  adopted  country  ;  he 
may  be  ready  to  lose  his  life  in  her  defence,  but 
he  is  not  legally  a  citizen  :  he  can  exercise  no 
privileges  of  citizenship  ;  he  cannot  vote  or  be 
entrusted  with  the  management  of  public  af- 


80  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIOIJS. 

fairs,  until  he  has  been  formally  invested  with 
the  citizenship  according  to  law.  Now  suppose 
in  his  ignorance  he  should  apply  to  another  for- 
eigner to  make  him  a  citizen,  and  this  other 
through  ignorance  or  design  should  administer 
to  him  the  oath  in  the  very  form,  and  words 
required  by  the  law.  Would  this  make  him 
a  legal  citizen  ?  Would  the  judge  of  the 
election  permit  him  to  vote  /  Not  at  all.  He 
must  take  the  oath,  not  by  himself  alone  ;  not 
before  another  stranger  like  himself,  not  even 
before  a  native  born  citizen,  but  it  must,  to  be 
a  valid  initiation,  be  administered  by  a  citizen 
properly  qualified  and  duly  authorized  to  re- 
ceive his  declaration  of  allegiance  and  to  receive 
him  as  a  citizen  in  consequence  of  his  having 
made  it. 

3.  But  here  is  another  thought :  No  Baptist 
Church  could  consistently  receive  and  sanction 
as  valid  any  official  act  performed  even  by  one 
who  had  been  a  Baptist  minister,  after  such 
minister  had  been  deposed  from  his  office  and 
excluded  from  the  Church. 

This,  I  presume,  will  not  be  disputed  even  by 
Eld.  Fuller.  But  if  the  church  cannot  sanc- 
tion the  official  act  of  a  hcqytlzed  man  who  is 
no  longer  a  Church  member,  how  can  she  sanc- 
tion the  same  act  performed  by  an  2^7ibaptized 
man  who  never  has  been  a  Church  member  ? 
Now  she  would  at  once  depose  and  exclude  a 
Baptist  minister  for  sprinkling  babies  as  bap- 


REVIEW  OF   FULLER.  81 

tism,  and  if  the  Methodists  or  Preshyterians, 
whose  official  acts  she  is  required  to  sanction, 
had  been  within  her  jurisdiction,  she  would 
long  ago  have  disowned  them  and  repudiated 
their  acts  ;  yet  merely  because  they  have  been 
beyond  the  reach  of  her  disciplinej  she  is  to 
receive  as  valid  and  sanction  their  official  work 
as  though  it  had  been  done  by  a  minister  in 
good  standing  in  her  own  communion.  I  say, 
No  !  never!  never!  never!  What  a  baptized  man 
may  not  do  when  he  has  been  excluded  from 
the  Church,  an  -wnbaptized  man  habitually 
guilty  of  the  same  acts  for  which  the  other  was 
excluded,  cannot  do. 

We  have,  therefore,  first  the  fact,  that  tho 
commission  which  Elder  Fuller  says  contains 
the  only  authority  to  baptize,  was  given  only 
to  the  baptized.  Second,  we  have  the  fact  that 
in  the  whole  Scripture  record  there  is  no  ac- 
count given  of  any  others  but  the  baptized 
performing  the  ordinance.  There  is  not  even 
ground  for  an  inference  that  they  did  so.  Third, 
/we  have  the  fact  that  baptism  was  the  initiating 
ordinance  by  which  one  was  brought  within  the 
kingdom  ;  and  unless  the  initiatory  ordinance 
— the  oath  of  allegiance  of  the  kingdom — 
could  be  administered  by  those  who  were  not  in 
it  themselves,  the  necessary  inference  is,  that 
those  who  gave  it  must  have  first  received  it. 
Fourth,  we  have  the  fact  that  if  a  baptized 
minister  were  guilty  of  such  acts  as  Pedobap- 


62  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

list  ministers  habitually  perform,  no  Baptist 
Church  would  think  of  sanctioning  his  of&cial 
acts,  or  could  do  it  without  the  sacrifice  of  all 
regard  to  order  ;  and  unless  the  fact  that  these 
ministers  are  unbaptized  gives  v^alidity  to  acts 
which  could  not  be  recognized  as  valid  if  done 
by  a  baptized  minister  of  the  same  character 
and  holding  the  same  sentiments,  we  must  con- 
clude that  the  act  is  not  only  irregular,  but  null 
and  void. 

Now,  what  does  Eld.  Fuller  present  against 
this  array  of  facts  and  arguments. 

He  says  that  if  a  man  should  chance  to  be 
informally  or  illegally  married,  it  would  be  a 
ead  thing  to  count  the  marriage  null,  and  so 
bastardize  the  children.  To  this  I  have  only 
to  answer,  that  if  the  laiv  requires  marriage  to 
be  performed  by  one  possessing  certain  qualifi- 
cations, and  I  shall  discover  that  the  man  who 
married  me  did  not  possess  them,  or  that  from 
any  other  cause  I  have  not  been  legally  mar- 
ried, I  will,  with  my  wife's  consent,  get  inar- 
ried  over  again,  and  be  sure  to  have  it  rightly 
done.  So  I  think  would  Eld.  Fuller,  or  any 
other  honest  man,  who  meant  to  obey  the  laio 
concerning  matrimony. 

But  the  Commission  says,  "  He  that  believ- 
eth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved." 

True  enough,  and  the  same  Commission  says 
to  the  baptized  preachers,  Go  ye  and  baptize 
them.     Did    Peter,  when   he    executed  thia 


REVIEW   OF   FULLER,  83 

commissioDj  and  said,  Kepent  and  be  baptized, 
leave  them  to  go  to  the  Jewish  priests,  or  to 
the  priests  of  Jupiter  for  the  performance  of 
the  ceremony  ?  It  seems  most  likely  that  the 
apostles  understood  the  Commission  almost  as 
well  as  Eld.  Fuller,  and  if  they  did  not  send 
candidates  out  of  the  church  for  baptism,  or 
receive  those  who  had  been  immersed  by  un- 
baptized  priests  or  privates,  the  Commission 
cannot  give  authority  for  us  to  do  so.  Here 
seems  to  be  the  great  difficulty  in  Eld.  Fuller's 
mind.  Baptism  is  commanded  as  a  joerso^zaZ 
duty,  and  nothing  is  said  of  the  administrator. 
"  The  administrator  is  never  referred  to  as  af- 
fecting the  validity  of  the  ordinance."  But 
yet  he  admits  that  the  Commission — the  sole 
authority  to  baptize  was  given  to  those  who  had 
been  baptized  themselves.  He  clearly  proves 
in  his  book  that  all  who  w^ent  about  preaching 
the  Commission  and  baptizing  must  have  been 
baptized  ;  and  neither  he,  nor  any  one  else, 
that  I  have  ever  heard  of,  pretends  that  the 
authority  to  baptize  was  scattered  promiscu- 
ously over  the  world,  and  that  one  was  as  com- 
petent to  do  it  as  another.  No  one  pretends 
that  there  is  either  precept  or  example  to  au- 
thorize its  administration  by  any  but  the  bap- 
tized, while  he  and  all  admit,  that  by  both 
precept  and  example,  it  is  plain  as  any  fact 
can  be,  that  it  was  to  be  done,  and  was  done 
hy  the  baptized.     What  more  does  he-  want  ? 


84  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMEKSIONS. 

What  more  can  lie  have  to  show  who  were  to 
be  the  administrators  ?  And  yet  in  view  of 
all  this  he  intimates  that  to  insist  that  he  who 
administers  baptism  must  have  been  himself 
baptized,  is  "  superstition  going  beyond  popery 
itself."  If  so,  then  the  Lord  himself  was  thus 
superstitious,  for  it  is  certain  by  Eld.  Fuller's 
own  showing  that  he  insisted  on  this.  If  so, 
then  each  of  the  apostles  was  as  superstitious 
as  his  Master,  for  it  is  evident  they  never  re- 
cognized the  baptism  of  the  uubaptized.  And 
for  myself,  while  I  can  stand  with  them,  I  do 
not  care  a  straw  whether  I  have  the  approba- 
tion of  the  Pope  or  not. 

But  if  the  qualifications  of  the  administra- 
tor of  baptism  cannot  affect  the  validity  of  the 
ordinance,  no  more  can  the  qualifications  of 
the  administrator  of  the  Lord's  Supper  aflect 
its  validity  as  a  church  ordinance,  for  there 
is  less  said  of  the  administrator  of  this  ordi- 
nance than  of  the  other.  If  one,  not  a  church 
member,  may  administer  baptism,  he  may  sure- 
ly with  equal  propriety  administer  the  Supper, 
though  he  cannot  partake  of  it  ;  and  when 
any  Baptist  Church  is  without  a  pastor,  and 
desire  to  celebrate  the  Supper,  they  may  send 
to  the  Methodist  or  Presbyterian  minister  to 
come  and  officiate  for  them.  The  Pedobaptist 
preacher  cannot  eat,  but  he  can  break  the 
bread  for  them — he  cannot  drink,  but  he  can 
pour  the  wine  for  them  ;  and  such  participa- 


REVIEW  OF   FULLER.  85 

tion,  though  irregular,  would  be  valid,  and 
should  be  sanctioned  by  all  tJie  churches,  if  the 
parties  are  satisfied,  forsooth.  Nay,  more,  if 
it  be  true  that  the  qualifications  of  the  admin- 
istrator cannot  affect  the  validity  of  baptism, 
then  Baptist  ministers  may  call  on  those  of 
Pedobaptist  Churches  to  take  the  labor  of  im- 
mersion off  their  hands,  or  at  least  assist  in  its 
performance,  and  the  churches  must  sanction 
the  act.  For  surely,  if  an  immersion  by  a  Pe- 
dobaptist to  initiate  one  into  a  Methodist  socie- 
ty is  valid  baptism,  an  immersion  by  the  same 
person  would  be  equally  valid,  if  done  to  make 
one  a  Baptist.  Yet  I  apprehend  that  even 
Eld.  Fuller,  with  all  his  persuasive  eloquence, 
would  find  it  impossible  to  induce  even  his  own 
church  to  sanction  such  a  baptism  performed  at 
his  request.  He  would  not  dare  even  to  sug- 
gest it. 

And  again,  if  a  Pedobaptist  minister,  in  the 
opinion  of  Baptist  churches  can  administer  the 
ordinances  in  a  scriptural  and  valid  manner,  why 
should  they  be  ordained  on  becoming  Baptist 
ministers  ?  If  they  can  confer  scriptural  bap- 
tism without  baptism  or  membership,  they  can 
Burely  confer  it  without  ordination  ;  and  as 
there  is  less  said  of  the  administrator  of  the 
Supper  than  there  is  of  the  administrator  of 
baptism,  they  can  equally  administer  that  ordi- 
nance. It  follows  that  there  can  be  no  neces- 
8 


86  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

sity  for  their  ordination,  and  tlie  churches 
should  not  insist  upon  it. 

And  further  still,  if  it  be  true  that  the  quali* 
fications  of.  the  administrator  cannot  at  all  af- 
fect the  validity  of  the  ordinances  ;  if  he  need 
not  be  a  Baptist  minister,  or  a  Baptist  church- 
member,  no  more  need  he  be  a  member  or  a 
minister  in  any  religious  society.  A  member  of 
a  division  of  the  Sons  of  Temperance  can  con- 
fer it  with  the  same  propriety  as  a  member  of 
a  Methodist  society,  or  a  priest  in  a  Masonic 
chapter,  as  well  as  a  Methodist  bishop.  Nay, 
baptism  conferred  by  the  veriest  infidel  in  all 
the  land  would  be  as  valid,  and  must  be  sanc- 
tioned by  the  churches,  as  though  it  had  been 
done  according  to  Christ's  commission,  and  un- 
der his  authorityj  as  exercised  through  hia 
churches.  Surely  Elder  Fuller  did  not  think 
what  he  was  saying.  It  is  true,  baptism  is  a 
personal  duty,  and  so  is  the  profession  of  faith 
that  goes  before  it,  and  when  the  candidate  has 
found  the  proper  persons  to  listen  to  his  profes^ 
sion,  he  will  have  no  difficulty  in  learning  who 
is  to  baptize  him. 

But  if,  says  Elder  Fuller,  we  require  that  the 
minister  shall  have  been  baj^tized,  *'  Where  will 
our  reqv/ireinents  cease  ?"  Must  he  be  sound 
in  faith.^  Must  he  be  this,  or  that,  or  the  other 
thing.?  I  wonder  that  any  one  should  be  em- 
barassed  by  such  difficulties  as  these.  We 
surely  ought  to  know  that  for  a  Baptist  Church 


REVIEW   OF    FULLER.  87 

to  recognize  ones  official  acts  he  must  be  a  Bap- 
tist minister  in  good  and  regular  standing  in 
some  Baptist  church.  It  is  not  because  he  has 
been  baptized  that  we  recognize  his  official 
acts,  but  because  he  is  a  member  and  a  minister 
duly  authorized  to  perform  them  ;  and  when 
he  ceases  to  be  either  the  one  or  the  other,  those 
churches  who  know  the  facts,  must  and  will,  if 
they  be  ftiithful  to  their  duty,  disown  him  as  a 
brother,  and  repudiate  his  official  acts  if  he 
ehould  continue  to  perform  them.  The  validity 
of  his  official  acts  does  not  depend  on  his  hap- 
tis7n,  or  on  his  piety,  or  on  his  orthodoxy,  but 
on  the  authority  tvhich  he  has  received  from  the 
Church.  So  long  as  he  retains  this  authority, 
therefore,  his  acts  are  valid,  and  when  it  is  with- 
drawn the  churches  must  regard  them  as  in- 
valid, as  they  must  the  official  acts  of  one  who 
has  never  received  such  authority.'''" 

But  one  thought  more  and  I  have  done.  If 
that  alone  be  valid  baptism,  says  Elder  F.,  which 
is  administered  by  one  who  has  been  himself 
baptized,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  valid  bap- 
tism. For  who  can  say  that  somewhere  in  the 
lapse  of  eighteen  hundred  years  there  may  not 
a  link  be  wanting  in  the  chain  of  our  baptismal 
succession.  And  so  because  there  may  have 
been  such  irregularities  in  the  past  as  he  is  ad- 

•  If  any  say  that  every  male  member  has  autboritjr  to  bap- 
tize by  virtue  of  his  membership,  it  will  still  hold  good  that 
no  one  can  have  it,  who  is  not  a  member.  -^  •. 


88         *         PEDOBAPTIST   IMMEKSIONS. 

vocating,  we  must  sanction  them  now.  Because 
some  church  may  at  some  time  in  past  ages, 
ignorantly  or  inadvertently  have  given  her 
sanction  to  an  irregular  and  invalid  baptism  ; 
does  Elder  Fuller  think,  or  can  any  Baptist 
think,  that  therefore,  every  church  ought  now 
knowingly  and  wilfully  to  sanction  every  such 
case  that  may  come  before  her  ? 

To  this  argument  of  his  I  have  first  to  say 
that  lightly  as  Eld.  Fuller  talks  of  the  baptis- 
mal succession,  it  will  be  hard  for  him  to  show 
that  it  does  not  exist.  As  he  makes  the  want 
of  it  the  basis  of  his  argument,  it  devolves  on 
him  to  prove  the  fact,  (if  it  be  a  fact,)  that  it 
is  wanting.  As  his  argument  hangs  on  that 
broken  link  it  is  for  him  to  find  and  show  that 
broken  link.  The  presumption  is  that  the 
chain  is  perfect.  If  baptism  is  essential  to 
church  membership,  and  Christ  declared  his 
church  as  an  institution,  should  continue  to 
the  end  of  time,  and  the  gates  of  hell  should 
not  prevail  against  it,  then  it  is  to  be  taken  for 
granted,  in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contra- 
ry that  baptized  churches  have  continued  in 
regular  succession  from  that  day  to  this,  and  any 
particular  baptized  church  must  be  regarded 
in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary,  as 
in  the  succession.  Elder  Fuller  may  doubt 
it,  but  for  myself  I  cannot  help  believing 
that  the  Lord  has  kept  his  word,  and  conse- 
quently there  have  been  all  the  time,  as  there 


KEVIEW   OF    FULLER.  89 

are  now,  regular  churches  of  baptized  believers. 
It  does  not  matter  whether  I  can  trace  them  all 
the  time  or  not,  I  will  take  their  existence  for 
granted  upon  the  Savior's  promise  that  they 
slioidd  exist  until  some  one  will  show  the  day 
in  which  it  could  be  said  that  they  were  all  de- 
stroyed, and  that  either  by  violence  or  craft 
the  gates  of  hell  had  prevailed.  And  while  I 
take  this  for  granted,  I  take  for  granted  also, 
that  ih.Q  church  that  baptized  Eld.  Fuller,  and 
that  to  w^hich  I  belong,  and  every  other  of  the 
same  faith  and  order,  with  those  established  by 
the  apostles,  have  received  valid  and  scriptural 
baptism  by  a  scriptural  administrator.  I  am 
entitled  to  do  so  until  the  contrary  shall  be 
shown.  God  in  his  providence  has  preserved 
his  churches  in  all  that  was  essential,  and  one 
essential  is  right  baptism.  He  can  perhaps 
ehow  here  and  there  an  irregular  baptism,  but 
he  cannot  show  that  these  irregularities  have 
been  perpetuated.  Roger  Williams'  little  so- 
ciety, claiming  to  be  a  Baptist  Church,  but 
without  regular  baptism,  died  out  in  two  or 
three  years,  and  no  one  can  show  that  any 
'  Baptist  minister  or  church  received  baptism 
from  them  or  by  their  authority.  There  were 
those  in  England  after  the  so  called  reforma- 
tion, who  contended  that  it  luould  he  right  and 
lawful  to  bajjtize  themselves,  and  so  begin  anew. 
But  there  is  no  proof  that  they  did  so,  for  we 
know  they  sent  to  the  Continent  to  receive  a 


90  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

baptism  which  would  have  no  suspicion  con- 
cerning its  validity.  And  thus,  I  do  not  doubt, 
it  has  ever  been.  God  has  preserved  the  scrip- 
tural baptism  in  all  that  is  essential.  And  if 
a  baptized  administrator  is  essential,  (as  we 
have  proved  it  is,)  then  he  -has  never  permit- 
ted the  children  of  his  visible  Kingdom  to  be 
thrust  into  it  by  those  who  would  not  enter  in 
themselves. 

But  while  I  might  take  this  ground,  I  need 
not,  and  will  not  do  it  for  the  purpose  of  meet- 
ing Eld.  Fuller's  argument.  I  am  willing  that 
he  should  have  it  all  his  own  way.  And  I 
fiimply  ask  him,  as  one  who  loves  the  peace, 
and  purity,  and  order  of  the  Christian 
Churches  to  answer  this  one  question.  If  a 
church  be  now  from  the  necessity  of  the  case, 
obliged  to  regard  as  valid  and  regular  some 
baptismal  act  performed  in  the  long  gone  past, 
and  about  which  there  may  now  be  good 
reason  to  doubt  whether  it  was  every  way  cor- 
rectly done,  must  she  in  consequence,  regard  as 
valid,  and  sanction  those  baptisms  performed  in 
her  own  time,  and  which  she  knows  to  be  illegal 
and  unscriptural,  concerning  which  there  is  not 
even  a  pretence  that  the  administrators  were 
qualified,  as  Brother  Fuller  says  the  first  ad- 
ministrators were  ?  If  so  what  is  church  order 
worth  ?  If  so  there  is  an  end  to  order.  The 
church  may  just  as  well  yield  all  her  claim  to 
the  divinely  appointed  guardian  of  Christ's  or- 


REVIEW   OF    FULLER.  91 

dinances.  And  any  one,  whether  in  the  churcb 
or  not,  whether  authorized  hy  church  authority 
or  not,  may  take  it  on  himself  to  perform 
Christian  baptism,  and  the  church  must  recog- 
nize and  sanction  the  act,  and  treat  him  in  this 
particular  as  though  he  were  a  member  and  a 
minister,  because,  forsooth,  some  hundred  or 
some  thousand  years  ago  the  like  thing  had 
been  done.  Surely  if  Elder  Fuller  had  not 
^^  written  in  haste"  he  could  not  have  failed  to 
see  this  consequence  of  his  argument.  And 
had  he  seen  it  he  surely  must  have  felt  that  it 
was  a  most  important  duty  of  every  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  take  the  same  course  to  "  cor- 
rect this  irregularity"  which  he  thought  it  so 
essential  for  himself  to  take  when  he  became  a 
Baptist.  I  am  glad  that  the  author  prefaced 
his  letter  by  his  personal  history.  If  "  actions 
speak  louder  than  words"  as  the  old  proverb 
says,  then  Eld.  Fuller,  rehaptized,  presents  a 
stronger  argument  against  his  letter  than  I  can 
do.  Let  the  churches  hear  him,  not  as  he  sits 
and  theorises  in  his  easy  chair,  writing  this  let- 
ter to  his  friend,  but  let  them  hear  him  as  he 
calls  out  to  them  from  beneath  the  waves  of 
Jordan,  acting  out  the  earnest  faith  of  an  hon- 
est heart,  and  saying  in  trumpet  tones,  ''  THIS 
IS  THE  WAY  TO  CORRECT  THE  IR- 
REGULARITY OF  PEDOBAPTIST  IM- 
MERSIONS." ^ 


92  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   VALIDITY   OP   BAPTISM     ADMINI8TEP.ED   BY   AN    UN- 
BAPtlZED  EVANGELIST.      BY  ELD.  JOHNSON,  OF  S.  C. 

In  my  fourth  number  on  the  Evangelists,  two  ques- 
tions came  up  for  consideration.  The  first  was 
answered  in  the  same  number.  The  second  was 
postponed,  which  is  as  follows :  "  Has  the  unbap- 
tized  Evangelist  authority  to  baptize  believers  V* 

In  discussing  this  subject,  I  shall  necessarily  re- 
peat some  things  that  I  have  said  before. 

The  Savior  said  unto  his  apostles,  in  the  solemn 
hour  of  his  leaving  them — **All  power  is  given  unto 
me  in  heaven  and  in  earth  ;  Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
make  disciples  in  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  tlie  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  In  conformity  with  these  directions, 
Peter  preached  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  made 
about  three  thousand  disciples,  who  were  baptized, 
and  added  to  them,  the  hundred  and  twenty  who  were 
all  with  one  accord,  in  one  place,  on  that  memorable 
day.  They  were  not  added  to  them  by  baptism,  but 
were  Jirsi  baptized,  and  then  added.  Philip,  the 
evangelist,  went  down  to  Samaria,  preached  and  bap- 
tized those  that  believed.  Shortly  after,  we  read  of 
a  church  jp.  Samaria.  A  ^reat  persecution  arose 
against  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  which  dispersed  all 
the  members,  except  the  apostles.     They  that  were 


REVIEW   OF  JOHNSON.  93 

scattered  abroad,  went  everywhere  preaching  the 
word  ;  and  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was  with  them, 
and  a  great  number  turned  to  the  Lord.  In  a  little 
time,  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  sent  upon  a  mission- 
ary tour,  through  those  regions,  and  found  many 
churches,  over  whom  they  ordained  elders.  Peter 
went  to  Cornelius*  house,  where  a  company  was  as- 
sembled, and  preached  to  them.  The  Holy  Spirit 
fell  upon  them  all,  and  he  commanded  them  to  be 
baptized,  and  a  church  was  formed  at  Ceesarea,  the 
residence  of  the  centurion.  Paul  baptized  believing 
Corinthians.  We  thus  see  that  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists— Preachers  of  the  Gospel — are  the  baptizers 
of  believers.  But  these  were  themselves  baptized. 
How,  then,  can  a  baptism  by  one,  himself  unbaptized, 
be  valid  ?  Light  will  be  thrown  on  this  subject  by 
first  ascertaining  whether  one  can  be  an  evangelist, 
or  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  who  has  not  been  bap* 
tized.     This  is  a  question  of  fact. 

It  is  too  obvious  to  need  proof,  that  Jesus  Chiist 
makes  the  evangelist  or  preacher,  and  not  man.  It 
is  equally  obvious,  that  the  only  mode  in  which  we 
ascertain  a  preacher  is  by  his  qualification  and  de- 
sire for  the  office.  John  the  Baptist  did  no  miracle 
to  prove  his  appointment  to  the  ministry,  yet  he  was 
a  preacher  of  Christ,  though  he  did  not  as  fully 
preach  the  gospel  of  Christ,  as  it  was  preached  after 
His  resurrection.  We  know  that  John  was  not  bap- 
tized, and  yet,  by  his  qualifications  he  was  recog- 
nized and  received. 

Martin  Luther,  John  Knox,  George  Whitfield, 
Jonathan  Edwards,  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ 
with  a  power  and  success,  unsurpassed  by  any  preach- 
ers since  the  Apostle's  day.  Who  made  them  such 
preachers  ?     Who  blessed  their  labors  so  wonderful- 


S4  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

ly  ?  Not  man,  but  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  King  in  Zion. 
And  there  have  been  thousands  of  unbaptized 
preachers  in  Pedobaptist  societies,  who  have  faith- 
fully and  successfully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ. 
Can  we  say  that  they  are  not  preachers  of  the  Lord's 
making  ?  Surely  not.  Have  we  not  endorsed  men 
as  preachers,  though  unbaptized,  by  asking  them 
into  our  pulpits,  and  receiving  persons  for  baptism, 
and  afterward  into  our  churches,  who  were  awaken- 
ed and  converted  to  God  through  their  agency  or 
instrumentality  ?  Did  we  so  endorse  them  as  made 
by  man  ?  No.  But  as  made  by  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  and  His  Father.  Now  if  our  King  has 
dispensed  with  the  baptism  of  these  preachers  or 
evangehsts,  whom  He  has  put  into  the  ministry,  and 
has  blessed  their  labors  in  doing  His  work,  on  what 
ground  can  we  object  to  this  exercise  of  His  sover- 
eign will  ?  And  if  He  commands  His  preachers  to 
baptize  believers  upon  a  profession  of  their  fai?h  in 
Him  ;  and  those  whom  He  has  made  such,  preach 
and  baptize  believers  though  themselves  unbaptized, 
on  what  ground  can  we  refuse  to  receive  their  work 
in  baptizing,  as  well  as  in  preaching,  and  in  conver- 
sion, since  it  was  by  his  Spirit's  influences  that  they 
did  both  ?  That  Paul  regarded  baptizing  as  a  work 
inferior  to  preaching,  is  obvious,  as  he  says,  "I 
thank  God  that  I  baptized  none  of  you,  but  Crispus 
and  Gaius,  and  the  household  of  Stephanus.  For 
Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the 
gospel." 

That  baptized  and  unbaptized  evangelists  do  preach 
the  gospel,  and  that  by  means  of  their  preaching, 
souls  are  alike  savingly  converted  to  God  by  his 
blessing  on  their  labors,  cannot  be  doubted.  If  one 
converted  by  the  preaching  of  an  unbaptized  Evan- 


REVIEW   OF   JOHNSON.  95 

gelist,  should  apply  for  baptism  to  a  baptized  Evan- 
gelist, would  be  not,  if  satisfied  of  his  fitness  for  the 
ordinance,  administer  it  to  him  ?  And  would  not 
this  one,  upon  applicaUon  for  admission  into  a  Bap- 
tist church,  be  received  upon  his  faith  and  baptism  ? 
Most  assuredly.  Now  surely  conversion  is  a  greater 
work  than  b>iptism,  Well !  The  Lord,  not  man, 
makes  the  evangelist,  and  commissions  him  to  make 
and  baptia*^  disciples.  If  the  work  in  conversion  be 
ralid,  why  not  the  v/ork  in  baptism  also  ?  Especial- 
ly as  the  work  in  conversion  is  ihe  greater  of  the  two, 
and  the  same  authority  commands  the  same  officer 
to  do  both. 

Tht:^re  is  another  view  of  this  subject  worthy  of 
atfention.  A  distinction  is  made  by  our  Lord  be- 
tween His  kingdom  and  His  churches  on  this  earth. 
To  Pilate  He  said  :  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world  If  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then 
would  my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  dehv- 
ered  to  the  Jews."  The  Savior  evidently  meant, 
that  his  kingdom,  though  extending  ov<-r  this  whole 
earth,  was  not  of  a  worldly  nature,  being  governed 
neither  by  worldly  principles,  nor  sustained  by  world- 
ly mea.sures.  To  the  apostles  He  said,  *'  All  power 
h  givnn  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth."  And 
then  with  kingly  authority  he  commanded  them  to 
go  into  all  tbe  wo»ld,  and  make,  and  baptize  disci- 
ples, adding.  **  And  lo  1  I  am  with  you  always  to  the 
end  of  the  world."  Both  the  language  to  Pil-ite  and 
the  commission  to  the  apostles  w  re  spoken  betore 
any  churches  existed  ;  and  therefore  the  kingdom  of 
Chrii't  and  his  churches  are  not  identical.  Of  the 
kiiitrdom  the  apcsik^s  were  the  chief  officers  ;  next, 
the  seventy  disciples,  and  now  the  evanajelists.  The 
world    is  their  field.     Itinerating,  as   heralds  of  the 


96  PED0BAPTI3T   IMMERSIONS. 

cross,  as  they  go,  they  preach  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
wheresoever  any  become  his  disciples,  they  immerse 
them  into  the  name  of  the  Triune  God  ;  and  these 
immersed  disciples  are  the  materials  of  which  the 
churches  are  formed.  It  thus  evidently  appears  that 
evangelists  are  officers  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

When  a  sinner  is  truly  converted  to  God,  he  is  a 
spiritual  subject  of  Christ's  kingdom.  By  baptism 
he  becomes  visibly  such.  As  Christ  only  makes  and 
appoints  the  evangelist,  if  He  is  pleased  to  dispense 
with  his  submission  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  it 
is  His  sovereign  act ;  and  we  have  no  right  to  ob- 
ject to  His  act.  The  evangelist,  who  comes  bearing 
the  broad  seal  of  his  Master's  appointment  in  the 
qualifications  by  which  he  is  to  be  known,  should  be 
received,  and  his  work  also,  when  done  in  obedience 
to  the  commission  of  his  Lord.  Hence  the  immer- 
sion of  a  professed  believer  in  Jesus  Christ,  adminis- 
tered by  an  unbaptized  evangelist  is  a  valid  bap- 
tism. 

It  is  urged  as  an  objection  against  the  validity  of 
8uch  a  baptism,  that  the  baptizer  would  have  a  right 
to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper  to  believers  also, 
and  hence  we  should  have  such  administrators 
brought  into  the.  churches  as  partakers,  likewise  of 
the  ordinance,  and  thus  mixed  communion  would  be 
introduced  amongst  us.  Let  it  be  observed  in  re- 
ply, that  a  right  to  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
stands  upon  different  grounds.  Faith  in  Christ  gives 
the  right  to  baptism.  Church  membership — the 
right  to  the  Lord's  Table.  The  evangelist  is  com- 
manded to  baptize,  but  not  to  administer  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Baptism  is  committed  to  ministerial  hands 
— the  Lord's  Supper  is  not.  Baptism  is  a  personal, 
individual  ordinance ;  the  supper  is  a  social  church 


KEYIEW   OF  JOHNSON.  97 

ordinance.  The  one  is  the  ordinance  of  the  king- 
dom of  Christ ;  the  other,  of  the  churches  of  Christ. 
The  evantjelist  is  an  officer  of  the  kingdom,  not  of  a 
church  of  Christ.  An  evangelist  may  become  a 
bishop  of  a  church,  and  thus  be  her  presiding  officer. 
An  unbaptized  evangehst  cannot  become  an  officer 
of  a  church  of  Christ,  for  he  cannot  be  a  member  of 
a  church.  He,  therefore,  can  neither  preside  at  the 
table  of  the  Lord,  nor  be  a  partaker  of  its  rich  fare. 
There  is,  then,  no  danger  of  the  introduction  of 
mixed  communion  into  our  churches,  on  the  ground 
of  the  validity  of  a  baptism  under  the  hands  of  an 
unbaptized  evangelist. 

The  only  objecdon  against  the  validity  of  a  bap- 
tism by  an  unbaptized  evangelist,  that  has  any  force, 
is,  that  he  himself  is  unbaptized.  But  this  objection 
lies  ^ith  equal  force  against  his  authority  to  preach, 
■which  is  a  much  higher  work  than  to  baptize.  It 
lies  also  with  equal  force  against  the  claim  of  any 
unbaptized  professor  of  religion  to  be  a  Christian  ; 
so  that,  to  carry  out  the  principle,  we  should  not  re- 
ceive an  unbaptized  evangelist  as  a  preacher  of  the 
Go?pel  into  our  pulpits,  or  recognize  bim  in  any  way 
as  a  minister  of  Christ ;  neither  should  we  recognize 
any  unbapiized  person  as  a  Christian.  Are  we  pre- 
pared for  such  a  course  of  treatment  to  all  other  de- 
nominations of  professed  believers  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ? 

After  all,  the  essence  of  true  spiritual  gospel 
baptism  consists  in  the  immersion  in  water,  of  a 
spiritual  believer,  upon  a  profession  of  fai'.h  in  Christ, 
by  whomsoever  the  ordinance  may  be  administered. 
After  such  an  immersion,  its  repetition  would  be 
another  baptism,  for  which  there  is  no  authority  in 
the  scripture.  The  requirement  of  an  immersed  ad- 
9 


98  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMEKSIONS. 

Kiinistrator  as  indispensable,  then,  throws  us  back 
upon  the  apostolical  succession,  so  that  no  Baptist 
could  prove  the  validity  of  his  own  baptism,  unless 
he  could  go  back  through  a  line  of  baptized  admin- 
istrators to  one  of  the  apostles.  And  let  me  ask — 
through  what  line  of  ministerial  ancestry  will  he 
undertake  bis  task  ? 

Roger  Williams  was  ordained  in  the  Church  of 
England.  He  afterwards  embraced  Baptist  princi- 
ples. Banii^hed  from  Massachusetts  for  his  peculiar 
views,  he  settled  in  Providence,  Rhode  Island.  There 
he  baptized  Mr.  HoUiman,  who  had  embraced  the 
same  views,  and  then  Mr  Holliman  baptized  Mr. 
WilLams,  who  afterwards  founded  a  Baptist  Church 
in  that  city.  And  the  extraordinary  and  blessed 
results  that  have  followed,  will  be  fully  understood 
in  eternity  only.  What  Baptist  would  go  back  some 
two  hundred  years,  and  undo  the  rai^^hty  work  that 
followed  the  labors  of  Roger  Williams,  on  the  ground, 
that  though  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  he  had  no 
right  to  bHp'ize,  because  he  was  himself  unbaptized, 
and  therefore  his  baptism  of  Holliman  and  all  other 
bapdsms  resulting  from  that,  were  null  and  void. 

W. 


KEVIEW    OF    THE    ABOVE. 

In  the  discussion  of  questions  of  this  kind  it 
is  essential  that  we  have  some  settled  and  ad- 
mitted principles  upon  which  we  may  base  our 
arguments.  If  there  be  at  the  bottom  of  our 
reasonings  only  the  loose  and  ever-shifting 
sand,  it  matters  not  how  firmly  our  conclusions 
may  be  built  upon  our  premises,  for  the  prem- 


EEVIEW   OF   JOHNSON.  99 

ises  themselves  have  no  stability,  and  the  whole 
fabric  will  tumble  together  into  ruin.  It  will 
avail  us  nothing  to  tie  our  vessel  to  a  floating 
wreck.  If  we  should,  we  will  not  know  where 
we  are  and  whither  we  are  drifting.  Our  first 
object,  therefore,  must  be  to  fix  upon  some 
settled  and  admitted  truths  which  we  can  make 
the  basis  of  our  reasonings.  Such  truths  I  take 
to  be  the  following,  viz.  :  1st.  All  the  author- 
ity  lahich  any  one  can  have  to  baptize  must  he 
derived  fom  the  Word  of  God.  To  the  Bible, 
and  the  Bible  only,  we  must  all  appeal. 
Whether  baptism  be  regarded  as  an  ordinance 
of  the  Church,  or  of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  it 
is  equally  an  ordinance  of  the  New  Testa7nent. 
To  this,  and  this  alone,  we  go  to  learn  what 
baptism  is.  To  this,  and  this  alone,  we  go  to 
learn  who  are  to  be  baptized  ;  and  it  is  from 
this,  and  this  alone,  that  we  must  learn  who 
are  authorized  to  confer  baptism.  If  we  leave 
the  written  Word,  and  permit  ourselves  to  be 
decided  by  the  dictates  of  uninspired  reason, 
uninspired  tradition,  or  uninspired  conjectures 
as  to  what  is  right  and  authoritative  in  the 
Kingdom  of  Christ,  we  are,  at  once,  at  sea  with- 
out a  pilot  or  a  compass,  and  know  not  whither 
we  may  float. 

2d.  If  the  above  be  admitted  (and  we  do 
not  think  that  "  W."  or  any  other  Baptist  will 
think  of  disputing  it),  it  follows,  that  if  the 
New    Testament    has    not  given  authority  to 


100  PEDpBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

^^  uribaptized  Evangelists"  to  baptize,  then  ^^un- 
baptized  Evangelists"  have  no  such  authority. 

The  question  before  us,  therefore,  is  reduced 
to  this :  Does  the  New  Testament  any  where, 
by  precept  or  by  example,  or  by  any  fair  and 
legitimate  inference,  confer  on  ^'unboptized 
Evangelists"  the  ''  authority  to  baptize  believ- 
ers T 

And  here,  it  seems  to  us,  the  whole  discussion 
might  be,  at  once,  cut  oft  by  asking  one  simple 
question  :  Is  there  any  such  a  being  as  an  "  un- 
baptized  Evojigelist"  recognized  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  Is  he  ever  described  ?  Is  he 
ever  mentioned  ?  Is  he  ever  alluded  to  as  hav- 
ing either  a  present  or  a  prospective  existence  ? 

If  he  is  not  known  to  the  Scriptures,  it  fol- 
lows, of  course,  that  he  has  received  no  author- 
ity from  them.  Now  let  ''  W.,"  or  any  one  else, 
take  his  Bible  and  his  Concordance,  English  or 
Greek,  and  make  diligent  search  from  the  first 
of  Matthew  to  the  last  of  Revelations,  and  if  he 
can  find  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  unbap- 
tized  Evangelist,  in  the  sense  that  "  W."  uses 
the  terms,  he  will,  in  our  opinion,  be  entitled  to 
take  rank  with  the  discoverers  of  things  before 
unknown.  This  unbaptized  Evangelist,  the 
reader  will  observe,  to  accord  with  "  W.'s"  de- 
scription of  him,  must  be  "a?i  officer  in  the 
[visible]  Kingdom  of  Christ ;"  yet  he  is  one 
who  "  can  not  be  a  member  of  a  Church  of 
Christ"  and  can  ^^  neither  preside  at  the  table  of 


EEVIEW   OF   JOHNSON.  101 

(he  Lordj  nor  be  a  partaker  of  its  rich  fare." 
He  is  one  who  is  authorized  to  preach  to  others 
that  believers  must  he  baptized  accordiDg  to 
Christ's  law,  yet  he  himself  claims  to  be  a  be- 
liever, and  will  not  be  baptized.  He  is  author- 
ized to  make  disciples,  and  teach  them  to  ob- 
serve all  that  Christ  commanded,  yet  he  himself 
will  not  observe  the  very  first  of  all  the  things 
which  Christ  commanded  to  a  believer :  "  Be- 
lieve and  be  baptized." 

But  for  the  fear  that  we  might  be  thought 
unwilling  to  do  full  justice  to  all  the  arguments 
by  which  ''  W."  has  attempted  to  sustain  his 
positions,  we  would  stop  here  and  wait  with 
patience  until  some  one  shall  show  us  the  chap- 
ter and  the  verse  where  this  strange  compound 
of  faith  and  disobedience,  having  authority  from 
Christ  to  preach  what  he  will  not  practice,  may 
be  found.  If  he  himself  can  not  be  discovered 
in  the  Word,  we  surely  need  not  waste  our 
time  in  looking  for  his  "  authority  to  baptize  be- 
lievers." 

But  if  we  should  discover  the  "  unbaptized 
Evangelist"  to  be  a  veritable  existence,  clearly 
recognized  as  having  life  and  breath,  and  hold- 
ing office  in  Christ's  Kingdom,  as  that  King- 
dom is  described  and  bounded  in  the  Word  of 
God,  then  we  will  have  this  other  question  to 
decide,  viz.  :  What  are  the  duties  which  the 
New  Testament  imposes  upon  this  "  officer  of 
iJte  Kingdom"  or  which  it  authorizes  him  to 


102  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

perform  ?  He  may  be  an  officer,  and  yet  not 
have,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  any  authority  to 
baptize.  Deacons  are  officers,  yet  it  does  not 
certainly  appear  that  it  was  any  part  of  the 
duty  of  their  office  to  administer  baptism. 

Here,  therefore,  is  the  burden  which  devolves 
on  "  W.''  before  he  can  make  good  his  position. 
He  says  that  unbaptized  Evangelists  have 
authority  to  baptize  believers.  We  simply 
deny. 

It  then  devolves  on  him  to  show  that  there 
is  in  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  an  "  officer'*  called 
an  ^'  unbaptized  Evangelist ,"  who  is  not  known 
to  the  Scriptures,  and  who,  of  course,  has  no 
scriptural  authority  ;  or  else  that  this  '^unbap- 
tiztd  Evangelist"  is  known  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
DID  receive  ''  authority  to  baptize"  from  Christ, 
as  the  source  of  all  authority  in  his  Kingdom. 
As  we  regard  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  as  a  scrip- 
tural kingdom,  concerning  which  we  have  no 
other  source  of  information  as  to  who  are  mem- 
bers of  it,  or  who  are  officers  in  it,  or  what  are 
the  privileges  or  duties  of  members  or  officers, 
we  must  confine  our  investigations  to  the  teach- 
ings of  THE  WRITTEN  WoRD  ;  and  if  he  will  not 
open  the  flood-gates  to  all  manner  of  error  and 
su])erstition,  he  must  submit  to  meet  us  on  the 
Bible  Platform,  and  be  content  to  abide  by 
the  decisions  of  the  Word  of  God.  He  must 
therefore  show  us  in  the  Word  where  his  un- 
baptized Evangelist  is  found,  and  where,  and 


KB  VIEW   OF   JOHNSON.  103 

when,  and  how  he  received  his  commission 
from  the  Lord  of  the  Kingdom  to  baptize  be- 
lievers. "  To  the  Law  and  to  the  Testimony  ; 
if  he  s'peak  not  according  to  this  Wordy  it  is  be- 
cause there  is  no  light  in  him."  Let  us  then 
inquire,  is  there  any  '^  iwecept"  any  command- 
ment in  the  Word  requiring  "  unbaptized  Evan- 
gelists" to  baptize  believers  ?  Was  the  great 
commission,  which  is  commonly  thought  to. 
contain  the  only  authority  which  any  person 
has  to  baptize  any  body,  given  to  "  unbaptized 
Evangelisis  ?''  "  W.''  makes  no  pretension 
that  it  was.  Unbaptized  Evangelists  can  not 
act  under  this  commission,  for,  if  they  be  believ- 
ers, it  requires  them  to  be  baptized.  With 
whtxt  face  can  they  preach,  "  believe,  and  be  bap- 
tizedj'  when  they  despise  and  repudiate  the 
ordinance  ? 

But  ^'  W."  says  ''''John  was  not  baptized,  and 
yet  by  his  qualiji cations  he  was  recognized  and. 
received."  Excepting  only  this  case  of  John, 
he  does  not  present  from  the  Scriptures,  any 
shadow  of  authority  conferred  on  any  unbap- 
tized man  to  baptize  believers.  There  was  no 
command  given  to  any  such  to  do  it.  There 
is  no  example  of  any  such  who  did  it.  No 
other  dared  to  do  it ;  nor  would  John,  had 
Christ  not  given  him  a  personal  commission. 
As  an  unbaptized  baptizer,  John  stands  alone. 
This  is  an  admitted  fact.  It  was  impossible 
but  that   some  unbajitized  man  should  begin 


104  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

the  work.  And  Christ  sent  John  to  do  it.  He 
had  a  special  commission  to  introduce  the  rite, 
and  make  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord. 
And  if  "  W.'s"  "  nnbaptized  Evangelists"  have 
a  similar  commission  from  Christ  to  introduce 
the  rite  wliere  it  does  not  exist,  his  case  may 
he  referred  to  as  a  precedent  for  their's  ;  but 
certainly  not  otherwise,  The  previous  sub- 
mission to  baptism  could  not  be  required  as  a 
qualification  in  John — because  there  was  no 
one  who  could  confer  it  upon  John.  After  it 
became  possible  to  receive  it  however,  Christ 
would  not  exempt  even  himself  from  its  recep- 
tion. When  John  began  to  baptize  there  was 
no  Jaiu  requiring  Mm  to  be  baptized.  He  was 
no  rejector  of  Christ's  ordinance,  as  every  un- 
baptized  Evangelist  now  must  be^  and  must 
then  have  been,  had  he  existed.  The  com- 
mand, therefore,  which  authorized  John,  is  no 
authority  to  any  other  unbaptized  person  to  bap- 
tize believers. 

But  failing  of  precept  or  example,  have  we 
any  fair  and  reasonable  inference.  Here  "  W.'" 
makes  a  better  showing,  "  Baptism''  is  of  less 
importance  than  "preaching,"  and  hence  we 
may  infer  that  all  who  are  authorized  to  preach 
are  also  authorized  to  baptize. 

We  might  grant  this,  and  the  question  would 
still  be  undecided.  For  it  would  still  remain 
to  be  determined  whether,  acccording  to  the 
scriptures^  any   unbaptized  man  is  authorized 


REVIEW    OF    JOHNSON.  105 

to  preach.  But  it  is  not  true  that  the  right 
to  baptize  is  of  necessity  included  in  the  right 
to  preach,  even  though  preaching  may  be  more 
important  than  baptizing.  The  greater  does 
not  include  the  less,  except  the  less  be  a  con- 
stituent part  of  the  greater.  A  man  may  be 
authorized  to  act  as  Governor,  and  yet  have  no 
authority  to  receive  taxes,  although  his  office 
is  more  important  than  that  of  Tax-Collpctor. 
Christ  might  have  authorized  thousands  of 
people  to  preach  whom  he  did  not  authorize  to 
baptize.  Some  people  think  he  did  They 
say  that  all  who  hear  the  gospel  are  duly  au- 
thorized to  preach  it.  ^^  Let  him  that  heareth, 
say  come.'*  But  they  do  not  pretend  that  ev- 
ery man  who  hears  the  gospel  is  authorized  to 
"  baptize  believers."  Some  people  say  that 
preaching  the  gospel  is  giving  religous  instruc- 
tion, and  that  it  is  the  privilege  and  the  duty 
of  every  one  who  is  competent  to  do  so,  to 
give  religious  instruction.  Yet  they  do  not 
pretend  that  every  one  who  has  the  capacity  to 
teach  another  something  about  religion,  is  on 
that  account  authorized  to  "  baptize  believers." 
If,  however,  it  be  said  that  the  commission 
to  preach  and  to  baptize  was  given  to  the  same 
persons,  and  that  consequently  all  who  are  au- 
thorized to  preach,  are  by  the  same  commission 
authorized  to  baptize.  We  grant  it.  But 
then,  this  joint  commission  was  not  given  to 
the  unbaptized.     It  conferred  on  such,  no  au- 


106  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMEESIONS. 

thority  eitlier  to  preach  or  to  baptize,  or  do 
any  thing  else  but  to  believe  and  he  baptized. 
If  this  commission,  therefore,  is  the  only  au- 
thority for  preaching,  it  is  certain  that  they 
have  no  authority  either  to  preach  or  to  bap- 
tize. It  is  not  enough  for  "  W."  to  show  that 
some  preachers  baptized,  and  that  an  unbaptized 
man  might  preach.  He  must  show  that  n7ibap- 
tized  preachers  were  authorized  to  baptize.  Let 
him  show  in  the  Word  of  God,  a  commission  au- 
thorizing one  who  would  not  himself  be  bap- 
tized, to  go  and  baptize  others.  Until  he  has 
done  this,  his  argument  stands  thus  : 

Baptized  preachers  are  authorized  to  bap- 
tize believers.  Unbaptized  Evangelists  are 
preachers. 

Therefore,  unbaptized  Evangelists  are  au- 
thorized to  baptize  believers. 

A  school  girl  would  laugh  at  such  logic,  un- 
less it  were  given  as  an  example  of  false  rea- 
soning. 

If  unbaptized  Evangelists  have  any  scriptural 
authority  either  to  preach  or  to  baptize,  they 
certainly  must  derive  it  from  some  other  pas- 
sage besides  the  commission,  since  this,  it  is 
admitted  by  all  parties,  was  given  only  to  the 
baptized. 

We  come  now  to  "  W.'s"  great  argument. 
The  Evangelist  is  an  officer,  not  of  a  church, 
but  of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ.  The  churches 
are  one  thing,  and  the  Kingdom  is  another. 


REVIEW   OF   JOHNSON.  107 

"  Of  the  Kingdom,  the  Apostles  loere  the  chief 
officers  next  the  seventy  Disciples,  mid  noio  the 
Evangelists."  Let  us  admit  all  this,  and  what 
will  follow  ?"  The  Kingdom  of  Christ,  as  he 
established  it,  was  designed  to  have  a  set  of 
officers  called  "  Evangelists."  What  of  it  ? 
These  Evangelists  could  preach  and  baptize. 
Well,  what  of  it  ?  We  freely  grant  all  this. 
But  then  we  ask, 'were  they  "  vmbaptized  Evan- 
gelists ?"  If  they  ivei^e,  then  the  case  is  decided. 
Then  he  has  found  the  thing  we  have  been 
looking  for.  Then  we  have  an  tmhaptized 
Evangelist  in  the  scriptures,  and  learn  what  he 
was  authorized  to  do.  But  until  it  is  deter- 
mined that  these  Evangelists  were  unbaptized, 
we  have  made  no  progress  whatever. 
Till  then,  our  argument  stands  thus  : 
Baptized  Evangelists  were  officers  in  the 
visible  Kingdom  of  Christ,  who  were  author- 
ized to,  baptize  believers,  and  are  so  recognized 
in  the  scriptures.  Therefore,  unbaptized  Evan- 
gelists  who  were  not  officers  in  that  Kingdom, 
and  had  no  authority  to  do  any  thing,  are  now 
authorized  to  baptize  believers.  The  very 
point  upon  which  his  whole  conclusion  rests, 
he  does  not  even  attempt  to  decide.  He  does 
not  so  much  as  try  to  prove  that  Philip,  the 
only  example  of  these  Evangelists  whom  he 
mentions,  was  an  unbaptized  preacher  of  the 
gospel.  He  does  not  pretend  that  Philip 
^^ could  not  be  a  member  of  a  church" presidt 


108  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

at  the  tahle  of  the  Lord,  or  partake  of  its  rick 
fare. 

It  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  at  all  to  tlie 
argument  "before  us,  wlietlier  baptism  is  an  or- 
dinance of  the  church  or  of  the  Kingdom,  or 
whether  the  Evangelist  is  an  officer  of  the 
church  or^of  the  Kinodom- — unless  it  shall  first 
he  proved  that  baptism  was  not  just  as  much 
a  prerequisite  to  membership  and  office-holding 
in  the  Kingdom  as  it  was  in  the  church.  And 
"  W./'  so  far  from  attempting  to  do  this,  ex- 
pressly recognizes  haptism  as  the  initiatory  rite, 
the  door  of  entrance  into  the  Kingdom — though 
not  into  the  churches.  And  now  if  it  he  true, 
that  haptism  is  the  initiatory  rite  of  Christ's 
visible  Kingdom,  and  if  it  be  true  that  the 
members  of  Christ's  visible  Kingdom  are  all 
ha]itized  persons,  and  that  the  ''  unhaptizcd 
Evangelist"  is  an  officer  in  that  Kingdom,  then 
it  follows  that  he  is  an  officer  of  a  Kingdom  in 
whuh  he  is  not  a  men)ber.  It  follows  that 
Christ  has  placed  the  great  initiatory  ordinance 
of  his  Kingdom  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
have  so  grt^at  a  contempt  for  it^  or  so  little  re- 
gard for  hini^  that  they  will  not  suhmit  to  it 
th('mselves.  He  has  given  the  door  of  entrance 
into  his  Kingdom  into  the  hands  of  those  who 
will  not  enter  it.  He  has  the  right  to  do  such 
things  if  he  should  choose,  hut  "  W."  has  not 
shown  us  in  the  recoid,  any  testimony  that  he 
has  done  so. 


REVIEW    OF   JOHNSON.  109 

But  some  one  may  say  the  "  imbaptized 
Evangelist''  is  a  member  and  an  officer  in  the 
^^  invisible  Kingdom."  But  the  invisible  has 
no  organization,  no  ordinances  and  no  officers. 
But  if  we  suppose  that  he  is  the  officer  of  the 
invisible  Kingdom,  we  shall  only  be  driven 
back  to  the  Word,  to  see  when,  and  where,  and 
how  it  was  that  Christ  appointed  him  and  gave 
him  authority  to  "  baptize  believers." 

But  "  W."  says  No.  We  need  not  go  to 
the  Scriptures  at  all.  We  find  the  evidence  of 
their  authority  in  their  tooi'Jc.  If  Christ  is 
willing  to  dispense  with  their  baptism,  why 
need  we  be  troubled  ?  And  Christ  shows  that 
he  is  pleased  to  dispense  with  their  baptism  by 
blessing  their  labors.  His  Spirit  calls  them  to 
preach  the  gospel.  They  do  preach  it,  and 
souls  are  saved.  Witness  Whitfield  and  Knox, 
Wesley  and  Edwards,  Calvin  and  Luther,  and 
a  host  like  them.  Who  will  deny  that  Christ 
has  sent  them  ?  Who  will  deny  that  Christ, 
the  King,  is  pleased  to  dispense  with  baptism 
in  such  holy  men  as  these  ?  We  only  reply, 
that  although  Christ  may  see  fit  to  dispense 
with  their  baptism,  he  has  not  authorized  hia 
churches  to  do  so.  He  is  sovereign  ;  He  doe« 
what  He  will.  We  are  His  subjects,  and  must 
be  ruled  by  His  law.  The  churches  are  the  exe* 
cutive  in  his  Kingdom,  and  they  must  execute 
the  law.  They  have  no  rule  for  their  official  con- 
duct  AS  HIS  CHURCHES  BUT  HIS  WRITTEN 
10 


110  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

WOED.  And  if  tliey  can  not  find  there,  that 
they  are  to  receive  the  baptisms  of  all  those 
-who  may  be  instrumental  in  converting  souls, 
then  they  are  not  at  liberty  to  receive  them. 
If  ''  W."  will  show  us  such  instructions  in  the 
Word,  we  yield  the  case.  To  the  Law  and  to 
the  Testimony — shov/  us  the  commandment. 

But  let  us,  for  a  moment,  grant  all  that 
^'  W."  contends  for  on  this  point.  What  will 
be  the  logical  result  ?  The  argument  stands 
thus  :  The  conversion  of  a  sinner  is  more  im- 
portant than  his  baptism.  These  men  have 
converted  sinners,  and  therefore  they  are  au- 
thorized to  baptize  them.  "  If  their  work  in 
conversion  be  valid,"  says  ^'W.,"  why  not  the 
work  of  baptism  also,"  and  "  especially  as  the 
work  of  conversion  is  the  greater  of  the  two, 
and  the  same  authority  commands  the  same 
officer  to  do  both  ?" 

We  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  conver- 
sion as  God's  work,  and  have  supposed  that 
when  the  churches  received  it,  they  received  it 
as  his  work,  and  not  the  preacher's,  and  we 
suppose  that  '^  W."  means  only  to  say  that 
they  were  instruments  in  the  hand  of  God  in 
the  conversion  of  these  men. — And  now  the 
question  is,  whether,  according  to  the  Scrip* 
tures,  any  person  who  is  the  means  of  anoth- 
ers'  conversion,  or  of  the  conversion  of  many 
persons,  has  on  that  account  the  '^  authority  to 
baptize  believers  V     Has  he  even  the  authority 


REVIEW    OF   JOHNSON.  Ill 

to  baptize  his  own  converts  ?  Grant  that  he 
has  and  see  where  we  will  stand.  That  gentle 
prl  who  plead  so  earnestly  with  her  father  to 
turn  and  live,  is  authorized,  if  her  sex  do  not 
forbid,  to  lead  him  into  the  water  and  bury 
him  in  baptism,  and  the  church  must  receive 
her  work  in  baptism  as  it  would  her  work  in 
conversion.  That  young  man,  just  now  him- 
self converted,  and  who  has  yet  made  no  pro- 
fession of  religion,  but  has  gone  to  his  former 
companions  in  sin  and  warned  them  of  their 
danger,  and  they  have  turned  to  God,  is  an 
authorized  administrator  of  baptism.  No  church 
would  refuse  to  receive  his  work  of  conversion, 
this  is  a  greater  work  than  baptism;  how,  then, 
can  they  refuse  to  regard  him  as  one  author- 
ized by  the  Scriptures  to  baptize  believers. 
Nay,  more.  There  is  a  wicked  wretch,  who 
prays  God  to  damn  his  own  soul.  His  com- 
panion is  struck  with  wonder  at  the  prayer — 
feels  that  there  is  danger  in  such  companion- 
ship— prays  God  to  save  his  soul,  and  he  is 
saved.  Now  is  not  this  swearer  authorized  to 
baptize  believers.  The  church  will  receive  his 
v/ork  in  conversion.  Why  not  in  baptism  ? 
And  ^' after  all,"  in  the  language  of  '•  W.," 
the  essence  of  true  spiritual  gospel  baptism 
consists  in  the  immersion  in  water  of  a  spiritual 
believer  upon  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  by 
tvhomsGever  {he  ordinance  may  be  administered.'* 
"  \y."  doubtless  thinks  so,  or  he  would  not 


112  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

have  said  it.  But  genuine  cliurches  of  Jesus 
Christ  will  be  very  slow  to  admit  that  every 
one  whose  efforts  have  been  blessed  of  God  to 
the  conversion  of  souls  is  on  that  account  au- 
thorized to  ''baptize  believers/'' 

God  may  bless  his  Word  in  the  mouth  of  a 
child  or  an  infidel  to  the  conversion  of  men, 
but  in  doing  so  he  does  not  commission  them  to 
administer  the  ordinances  of  his  Kingdom. 
And  so  he  may  bless  it  largely  in  the  mouth  of 
an  Edwards,  a  Whitfield,  or  a  Wesley,  and  yet, 
by  doing  so,  confer  on  them  no  authority  to  ad- 
minister a  rite  v/hich  they  will  not  receive,  or 
give  his  churches  any  permission  to  lay  aside 
nis  loritlen  iyistrtictions  in  regard  to  the  recep- 
tion of  members. 

To  say,  as  ''  W."  does,  that  any  objection  to 
receiving  one's  baptism,  lies  with  equal  force 
against  his  authority  to  preach,  is  simply  to  as- 
sert, that  none  are  by  the  Scriptures  authorized 
to  2yreach  but  those  who  are  also  authorized  to 
baptize.  If  this  be  true,  it  only  proves  that  the 
churches  of  Christ  should  no  more  recognize  the 
unbaptized  as  preachers  than  they  should  aa 
baptizers.  And  it  must  be  true,  if  the  commis- 
sion were  given  only  to  the  ba])tized,  unless 
there  be  so7ne  oilier  authority  for  them  to 
preach.  Whether  there  be  or  not,  we  do  not 
now  inquire. 

To  say  that  "  it  lies  equally  against  the  claim 
of  any  unbaptized  person  to  he  a  Christianj  is 


REVIEW   OF   JOHNSON".  113 

simply  to  assert,  that  if  we  deny  that  Christ  has 
authorized  any  one  to  baptize  believers  before  he 
has  himself  been  baptized  as  a  believer,  wo 
must  also  deny  that  he  has  authorized  any  one 
to  believe  on  him  before  he  has  been  baptized 
as  a  believer.  It  is  strange  that  any  one  who 
thinks  should  write  such  a  sentence, 

Christ  says,  believe,  then  be  baptized,  then 
preach  and  baptize,  as  you  were  baptized,  those 
who  believe  as  you  believed. 

In  regard  to  Roger  Williams  and  his  Church, 
*•  W."  asks,  '^  What  Baptist  would  be  willing 
to  go  back  two  hundred  years  and  undo  all  the 
mighty  work  that  followed  [its  organization], 
on  the  ground  that,  though  a  preacher  of  the 
Gospel,  he  had  no  right  to  baptize  ?"  Wo 
answer  that  nothinor  of  the  sort  is  necessary. 
The  mighty  result  which  has  followed,  has  had 
no  official  connection  w4th  Roger  Williams  or 
his  Church.  That  so-called  Church  lived  a 
sickly  life  for  a  short  time,  and  died.  Other 
Baptist  churches  existed  before  it,  and  others 
have  been  formed  since,  without  the  slightest 
connection,  direct  or  indirect,  with  that  little 
anomalous  affair  which  the  Pedobaptists  are  so 
fond  of  designating  the  Mother  of  the  Baptist 
denomination  in  America,  but  which  every 
Baptist  ought  to  know  was  an  accidental  and 
temporary  organization,  disconnected  with  the 
regular  Baptist  churches.  We  may  freely  ad- 
mit that  their  baptism  was  null  and  void,  with- 


114  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

out  any  serious  detriment  to  our  denominational 
order.'"' 

But  granting  that  "baptism  conferred  by  the 
unbaptized,  and  without  church  authority,  is 
invalid,  that  is,  unscriptural  and  illegal,  must 
not  every  Baptist  be  able  to  trace  his  baptismal 
pedigree  back  to  the  Apostles  before  he  can  be 
assured  that  he  has  valid  baptism.  This  ques- 
tion we  have  treated  of  in  another  chapter  ;  and 
will  here  only  say,  that  if  this  were  necessary 
we  had  rather  undertake  to  do  it  than  to  recog- 
nize the  official  authority  in  the  Kingdom  of 
Christ  of  men  who  are  not  in  that  Kingdom, 
and  to  whom  Christ  in  his  Word  has  given  no 
authority.  I  dare  not  change  Christ's  laws  for 
the  sake  of  avoiding  difficulties.  If  Christ,  in 
HIS  Word,  authorized  those  who  would  not 
obey  his  law  and  be  baptized,  to  baptize  others 
in  obedience  to  his  law,  although  it  would  look 
very  strange  to  me,  I  would  not  utter  a  word  of 
dissent  or  remonstrance.  He  is  the  Lord.  Let 
him  do  what  seemeth  him  good.  But  since  he 
has  given  them  no  such  authority,  I  will  not 
hioivingly  receive  their  baptisms,  even  though 
I  may  not  be  quite  certain  that  they  have  not 
imposed  them  on  me.  They  may  put  them 
upon  me  in  the  dark,  but  I  will  not  receive 
them  with  my  eyes  wide  open  in  the  broad  day- 

*  See  "  Trials  end  Sufferings  for  Eeligious  Liberty," 
■wliich.by  aijihentic  documents,  forever  sfttles  this  questioi), 
and  should  be  understood  by  every  Baptist.— Ec. 


REVIEW    OF   JOHNSON.  115 

light.  If  it  be  true  that  some  time  or  other, 
nobody  knows  just  when  or  how,  somebody  or 
other,  no  one  can  say  just  who,  in  some  place 
or  other,  nobody  can  say  just  where,  conferred 
illegal  baptism  on  some  one  now  forgotten,  and 
by  bare  possibility  my  baptism  may  have  been 
derived  from  this  illegal  source,  I  will  rest  un- 
der the  uncertainty  which  this  implies,  rather 
than  satisfy  my  doubts  by  admitting  that  any 
man  has  authority  to  baptize  believers  to  whom 
Christ  gave  no  such  authority  in  the  Scriptures. 
Must  a  Free  Mason  admit  that  initiation  into 
Masonry,  whether  conferred  in  a  Lodge  or  not, 
whether  authorized  by  the  Lodge  or  not,  is  a 
valid  initiation,  on  the  ground  that  there  have 
been  some  spurious  initiations  and  some  illegal 
Lodges,  and  he  cannot  therefore  knoiv  that 
either  he  himself  or  any  one  else  has  been  truly 
initiated,  unless  upon  the  supposition  that  all 
who  claim  to  confer  the  degree  really  do  confer 
it.  Will  a  member  of  the  Independent  Order 
of  Odd  Fellows  feel  that  he  is  under  the  neces- 
sity of  conceding  that  the  initiatory  rites  of  that 
order  may  be  lawfully  conferred  by  one  not  a 
member  of  it,  because  he  cannot  trace  the  of- 
ficial pedigree  of  those  who  were  concerned  in 
his  initiation  back  to  the  founders  of  the  order. 
Does  a  Son  of  Temperance  feel  that  he  must 
be  able  to  trace  the  official  pedigree  of  tliose 
concerned  in  his  initiation  back,  step  by  step, 
to  the  founders  of  the  order  in  New  York,  and 


116  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

prove  that  there  has  not  been  an  illegal  or  irreg- 
ular link  in  the  succession,  before  he  can  be  as- 
sured that  he  is  a  Son  of  Temperance  ?  When 
will  men  learn  to  use  their  common  sense  in 
matters  of  religion  as  they  do  in  other  things  ? 
But  for  a  full  examination  of  this  point,  see  the 
Eeview  of  Waller  in  the  next  chapter,  page  134. 


Mi^- 


WALLER    AGAIN.  117 

CHAPTER  YI. 

Elder  Waller  again. 

Since  writing  the  foregoing  reviews,  we  have 
seen  another  article  from  Ekler  Waller,  pub- 
lished in  the  third  volume  of  the  Western  Bap- 
tist Review,  page  267.  We  should  feel  that 
we  had  failed  to  do  what  we  desire,  that  is,  to 
place  before  our  readers  the  best  and  the  most 
conclusive  arguments  that  have  been  or  can  he 
offered  in  favor  of  the  reception  of  Pedobaptist 
immersions,  did  we  withhold  thj^s  one.  We 
eeek  for  truth.  We  trust  we  are  willing  to 
embrace  it  wherever  found,  or  by  whomsoever 
presented.  We  wish  our  readers  to  have  the 
truth,  and  are  more  than  willing  they  should 
learn  it  from  others  if  we  have  failed  to  find  it 
or  present  it.     The  article  is  as  follows  : 

the  validity  of  baptism  by  tedobaptist 

ministers. 

to  elder  j.  l.  waller. 

TuscuMBiA,  Ala.,  Feb   25,  1848. 

Will  you  give  your  views  on  the  following  question, 

viz  :  I.^  the  immersion   of  a  persoti  in  water  into  the 

name  of  the  Trinity,   upon  a   credible    profession  of 

faith  in  Christ,  ly  a  Pedobaptist  minister  who  has  not 


118  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

been  immersed,  a  valid  baptism  ?  This  question  is 
agitating  the  Muscle  Shoals  Association  very  much, 
and  unless  some  judicious  plan  can  be  devised  to 
eettle  the  difficulties  amicably,  no  one  can  divine 
what  T^ill  be  the  consequences.  Your  views  on  this 
subject,  published  in  the  Review,  will  be  much  val- 
ued. Yours  in  Christ, 

Richard  B.  Burleson. 

This  question,  substantially,  has  hitherto  received 
an  answer  in  the  Review.  Our  views  then  express- 
ed, by  brethren  to  whose  judgment  we  have  ever 
been  accustomed  to  bow  with  deference,  were  va- 
riously received — some  condemning  and  some  warm- 
ly approving  them.  It  is  a  subject  that  has  been 
mooted  for  centuries,  and  upon  which  much  has  been 
eaid  and  written — churches  have  been  rent,  the 
dearest  ties  of  brotherhood  have  been  sundered,  and 
the  blood  of  holy  men  has  been  shed — and  still  the 
naind  of  Christendom  is  as  much  unsettled  as  in  the 
beginning.  Recently  it  has  called  forth  much  dis* 
cussion  and  elicited  much  feeling  in  certain  porfions 
of  our  country,  especially  amoni^  Baptists  and  Epis. 
copalians.  Knights  of  the  quill  have  entered  the 
lists  with  dauntless  courage  and  fiery  zeal.  That 
confidence  in  their  prowess  and  that  anticipation  of 
victory  which  they  mani'est,  are  amusing  exhibitions 
of  self  conceit — 'he  empty  vaporing  of  those  unin- 
formed respecting  the  skill  and  resources  of  the 
opposing  combatants.  Several  times  we  have  wit- 
nessed these  redoubtable  heroes,  after  a  protracted 
rencounter  with  an  imaginary  foe,  exiending  through 
the  moiety  of  a  dozen  new-paper  columns,  rise  in 
true  warrior  pomp,  shake  what  they  supposed  their 
crimsoned  steel,  and  proclaim  that  the  conflict  was 


WALLER   AGAIN.  119 

ended,  for,  lo  !  they  had  laid  the  last  enemy  pros- 
trate ill  the  dust  !  Full  often,  during  the  p!\si  twelve 
calendar  months,  have  we  been  asked  to  look  and 
behold  victory  perched  upon  the  lances  of  the  war- 
riors upon  either  side  of  this  controversy.  But  we 
have  seen  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  contest  still 
rages.  The  clash  of  resounding  arms  stiil  grates 
like  harsh  thunder  upon  onr  '  ears.  For  ourselves, 
we  disclaim  emphatically  all  pretensions  to  such  skill 
in  polemic  warfare.  We  are  enca^^ed  in  no  such  in- 
vulnerable armor.  We  frankly  confess,  that  it  is  a 
field  in  which  we  e:spect  to  win  no  laurels.  We  see 
difficulties  and  dangers  too  thick  and  threatening  to 
hope  to  pass  through  them  uninjured.  To  speak 
plainly  : — we  have  given  this  subject  much  attention, 
and  have  very  carefully  examined  the  arguments  on 
every  side,  and  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  honest,  up- 
right and  intelligent  brethren  may  entertain  different 
opinions.  Hence  we  are  disposed  to  distrust  our 
own  judgment.  At  least  we  cannot  break  fellowship 
with  any  who  may  entertain  views  differing  from  our 
own.  Where  honest  differences  of  opinion  may  ex- 
ist, every  consideration  of  religion  prompts  to  kind- 
ness and  forbearance.  Bigotry  alone  can,  in  such 
cases,  excite  strife  and  di?:union. 

We  have  ever  maintained,  that  the  question  sub- 
mitted  by  our  correspondent  should  be  left  to  the 
decision  of  the  individual  church,  to  be  determined 
whenever  a  person,  baptized  as  supposed  above,  pre- 
sents himseU'  for  membership.  Not  many  so  baptized 
offer  to  unite  with  our  churches.  The  q'lesiion, 
therefore,  is  more  hypothetical  than  practical.  As- 
socia'ions  certainly  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
it.  It  is  purely  ecclesiastical,  and  associations  have 
no  jurisdiction  ia   such  cases.     Our  churches  being 


120  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

independeni;  and  supreme,  should  not  be  molested  in 
their  adjudications  upon  such  points.  But  unfor- 
tunately there  are  too  many  amongst  us  who  have  a 
disposition  to  disturb  the  peace  of  Zion — who  will 
not  admit  in  practice  what  they  grant  in  theory — 
that  the  church  is  above  the  association,  and  respon- 
sible for  her  acts  to  no  earthly  tribunal.  In  the 
bounds  of  our  acquaintance,  we  know  churches  in 
correspondence  with  the  same  association,  who  act 
differently  on  this  question — one  receiving  and  oth- 
ers rejecting  such  baptism — and  there  is  no  discord 
and  dispute  on  the  subject  We  know  churches  in 
the  same  vicinage,  and  whose  members  constantly 
intermingle,  acting  in  opposition  in  the  case,  and  yet 
the  most  perfect  fellowship  exists.  This  is  as  it 
should  be  everywhere.  Less  than  a  year  ago,  we 
were  in  company  with  almost  a  score  of  the  most 
able  Baptist  ministers  in  Kentucky.  This  matter 
was  the  subject  of  free  and  friendly  conversation. 
The  company  were  about  equally  divided  in  senti- 
ment. But  no  one  thought  it  ought  to  disturb  the 
kind  feelings  of  brethren  towards  each  other ;  and 
we  are  sure  that  the  brethren  diflFering  on  this  occa- 
sion as  cordially  esteem  each  other,  as  the  brethren 
agreeing.  Brethren  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  Christ 
will  ever  esteem  such  burdens  the  least  and  the 
lightest  they  have  to  bear  for  one  another. 

But  to  come  directly  to  the  matter  in  hand.  The 
question  presented  by  our  correspondent  may  be 
simplified  thus  : — Is  the  administrator  necessary  to 
the  validity  of  baptism  ?  Those  who  assume  the 
affirmative  maintain,  that  in  order  to  valid  baptism, 
three  things  are  necessary,  viz:  the  subject,  the 
mode,  and  the  administrator.  The  administrator, 
gay  they,  must  be  a  minister  in  good  standing  in  a 


WALLER   AGAIN.  121 

gospel  church,  who  has  himself  been  immersed :  or 
rather,  he  must  be  a  regular  Baptist  minister.  1  hia 
is  a  fair  and  plain  statement  of  the  case.  The  ques- 
tion submitted  above  supposes  a  proper  subject  and 
mode  ;  the  bone  of  strife  relates  to  the  administra- 
tor. The  question  thus  cleared  of  all  unnecessary 
obscurities,  should  be  calmly  met,  and  all  the  con- 
sequences flowing  from  the  positions  assumed  by 
those  on  the  affirmative,  should  be  dispaccionately 
examined  and  prayerfully  embraced  or  rejected. 

An(t  the  first  consequence  claiming  our  attention 
is,  tbat  if  the  administrator  be  necessary  to  the  va- 
lidity of  baptism  noiu,  he  was  always  necessary. 
This  is  a  plain,  common-sense  deduction,  which  we 
pr<!sume  no  one  will  controvert.  There  has  been 
no  law  given  in  relation  to  baptism  since  the  canon 
of  revelation  received  its  final  amen.  If  at  any 
time  since  the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  the 
world,  an  individual  received  baptism  in  a  manner 
contrary  to  the  divine  enaclments,  it  was  invalid  to 
all  inients  and  purposes  ;  for  God  has  not  given  a 
law  contrary  to  that  in  the  Bible.  The  proposiuoa 
of  the  affirmative  is,  that  those  who  have  been  bap- 
tized by  an  improper  administrator,  are  not  baptize d 
at  all.  If  that  is  true  now,  it  is  always  true.  It  as- 
sumes that  a  man  cannot  give  what  he  has  not  re- 
ceived. If  John  Jones,  who  baptized  John  Smith, 
was  baptized  by  an  improper  administrator,  it  follows 
that  John  Smith  has  no  baptism,  seeing  that  John 
Jones  did  not  hare  it.  And  so  on,  every  adminis- 
trator from  now  to  the  Apostles  must  be  proved  to 
be  a  proper  administrator,  or  else  all  baptisms  com- 
ing from  him  will  be  null  and  void.  If  any  link  in 
the  succession  be  broken,  the  most  skilful  spiriuial 
smith  under   the  whole   heavens  cannot  mend   the 

n 


122  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

chain.  If  one  thing  is  necessary  to  another,  they 
are  mutufiUy  dependect — one  destroyed  and  both  are 
destroyed.  An  improper  administrator,  twenty  gen- 
erations removed,  is  as  fatal  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
ordinance  as  such  a  one  but  one  generation  re- 
moved. 

i*^or  will  it  avail  to  argue,  that  cases  of  necessity 
rcay  arise  when  a  proper  administrator  cannot  be  ob- 
tained, and  that  then  an  improper  one  is  allowable. 
Thus  some  have  contended;  and  not  unfrequently 
we  have  seen  such  a  pof-.iuon  as.sumed  in  defence  of 
Roger  Williams.  But  the  argument  is  grossly  so- 
phistical. It  is  the  old  apoloofy  for  csinic  baprism-— 
for  the  subsiiiu  ion  of  'pnnkling  in  the  place  of  gos- 
pel b  iptisra.  The  J'pvinlilers  of  antiquity  were  wont 
to  pay,  ihat  in  cases  cf  necessity,  when  immersion 
could  not  be  administered,  affus<ion  would  suffice  ; 
and  where  water  could  not  be  procured,  that  wine, 
cr  oil,  or  milk,  or  even  s md  might  be  used  !  Such 
rea'^oning  is  monsirou^s'y  absurd.  For  where  a  duty 
cannot  be  performed  the  obligation  ceases.  No 
man  is  required  lo  perform  an  impossibility.  And  a 
thing  not  done  right  h  not  done  at  all.  The  man 
who  cannot  be  briptiaed  is  not  required  to  be  baptiz- 
ed. He  who,  by  a  plea  of  necessity,  resorts  to 
Bprinkling,  or  uses  anoiher  element  thi-n  water,  and 
ca'ls  it  bap'ism,  mocks  God.  He  performs  an  act 
of  mil  worship.  He  does  what  is  not  required  at 
his  hands.  The  same  is  just  as  true  of  the  admin- 
istrator, on  the  hypothesis  now  under  consideration. 
If  one  of  defined  character  raust  administer  baptism, 
then  another  of  a  diffen'nt  character  cannot  adminis- 
ter it.  The  necessiiy  in  the  case  may  dispense  with 
the  ordinance  altogether,  but  it  can  never  justify  iti 
administration  in  an  invalid  manner. 


WALLER   AGAIN.  123 

The  conclusion  then  seems  to  be  ineyitable,  that  if 
the  administrator  is  essential  to  the  ordinance  now, 
he  was  always  so  and  under  all  circumstances. 

A  second  coDset|uence  from  the  maintenance  of  the 
affirmative  cf  this  question  is,  that  no  person,  in 
these  days,  can  possibly  know  that  he  has  been  bap- 
tized at  all.  Certain  it  is,  that  so  far  as  we  are  con- 
cerned, we  are  involved  in  most  profound  ignorance 
as  to  the  validity  of  our  baptism  ;  and  yet  V7e  are  a 
Baptist  of  a  Bapti&t — our  father  and  our  fathi.r's 
faiher"*  were  Baptist  ministers.  We  have  p^rfjct 
knowle-rige  of  oar  immersion  in  the  beauufui  waters 
of  (he  Kentucky  river.  The  minij^ter  on  ih(:'.  occa- 
fiion  has  oft«  n  tol i  us  that  he  was  immersed  by  a 
certr-in  Baptist  mir-ister.  And  we  have  been  inform- 
ed, too,  upon  what  we  have  ever  esteemed  reliable 
tradition,  that  said  minister  was  aUo,  some  sixty 
years  ago,  immersed  by  another  Baptist  miaister. 
But  here  our  information  termluatrs  ; — who  baptized 
that  minister  we  have  no  means  cf  ascertaining.  All 
cur  irquiries  have  been  utterly  unavailing.  Here, 
then,  at  the  distance  of  a  little  more  than  half  a  cen- 
tury, an  impenetrable  barrier  hinders  our  progi'e^s  ; 
— clouds  and  darkness  hang  upon  our  horizon,  and 
intercept  our  visiou  ; — and  still  we  are  seventeen 
ceniuries  this  side  of  the  apostles,  our  chord  broken, 
and  we  left  to  wead  the  dark  labyrinth  of  succession 
ail  that  long  and  dreary  distance  in  order  to  know 
that  we  have  been  baptized  !  And  we  think  ir/ alto- 
gether probable,  that  few  members  cf  the  Muscle 
Shoal  Association  would  be  more  successful  tiian 
ourselves  in  establi'-hing  the  line  of  their  bnptisra, 
extenc'ing  from  this  to  the  apostolic  age.  Permit  us 
then  to  sugcfest  a  plan  by  which  the  difficulties  in 
this   Association    may  be  amicably  adjusted: — Let 


124  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

all  those  who  can  furnish  clear  and  indubitable  evi- 
dence of  the  validity  of  their  baptism,  according  to 
tbe  terms  of  the  affirmative  of  this  question,  vote 
non-fellowship  for  those  churches  and  ministers  who 
believe  it  right  to  receive  a  member  who  has  been 
immersed  on  profession  of  faith  by  a  Pedobaptist 
mmister;  and  let  all  the  rest  keep  silence.  We 
hazard  the  prediction,  that  this  will  put  the  matter 
forever  at  rest.  And  what  can  be  more  fair  ?  Surely 
no  brother,  in  all  Alabama,  would  wish  to  condemn 
in  another  what  he  allows  in  himself ! 

It  is  in  vain  to  urge,  in  answer  to  this,  that  a 
regular  succession  of  proper  administrators  may  be 
traced  to  the  apostles.  Were  we  even  to  grant  this, 
(which,  by  the  way,  no  man  can  prove,)  still  insur- 
mountable obstacles  would  bes^t  our  path — still  we 
c:^uld  not'know  that  we  had  received  baptism  from 
this  succession.  There  have  been,  it  must  be  re- 
membered, a  numerous  host  of  improper  administra- 
tors ; — and  from  these  we  may  have  obtained  our 
bapt'sm.  Who  oasa  tell  ?  Who  can  dispel  the  mists 
of  scepticism  which  mast  necessarily  becloud  every 
mind  called  to  investigate  this  subject  ?  Who  novr 
can  possibly  establish  the  validity  of  his  baptism 
through  this  succession  of  administrators  ?  He  may 
fondly  dream  that  he  has  received  it  from  a  proper 
administrator,  but  knowledge  on  the  subject  is  utter- 
ly out  of  the  question; 

The  last  consequence  we  shall  note  at  present  is, 
that  the  affirmative  of  this  question  makes  baptism 
an  anomaly  among  divine  institutions  ; — it  makes  it 
a  rluty  which  no  one  can  know  that  he  has  perform- 
ed !  Baptism  is  thus  rendered  useless  and  nugatory! 
If  we  cannot  know  that  we  discbarge  a  duty,  there 
can  be  no  benefit  or  advanta^/e  in  efforts  at  its  ob- 


WALLEK   AGAIN.  125 

servance.  Its  perrormance  or  its  neglect  must,  in 
our  minds,  amount  to  the  game  thing  ;  for  it  we 
cannot  know  that  vie  discharge  our  duty,  what  do 
wo  gain  by  efforts  to  discbarge  it?  In  beinof  bg.p- 
tized,  we  may  perform  a  duty  ;  and  then  ^'e  may  be 
mocldng  God  ;  and  according  to  the  docuine  under 
review,  we  have  no  means  of  dett'raiir-ing  which  is 
the  case.  Doubts  must  ever  surround  our  baptism. 
It  cannot,  therefore,  furnish  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscieoce  toi?fards  God.  It  is  impossible  that  any 
one  can  know  that  he  has  obeyed  the  last  great  com- 
mission of  the  Savior — that  he  has  been  buried  with 
Christ  by  bapdsm  into  deCvth,  and  arisen  to  walk  in 
newness  of  life!  But  is  not  this  strong  presumptive 
proof,  that  the  position  of  no  baptism  without  a  cer- 
tain and  definite  character  of  adminisirator,  is  an 
absurdity  ?  Can  we  not  know  when  we  discharge 
any  du^y  ?  Can  we  net  positively  determine  when 
we  observe  the  ordinances  of  God's  house  ?  Or  has 
the  lapse  of  centuries  rolled,  an  oblivious  wave  over 
the  way  of  holiness,  so  th-it  no  loager  can  we  dis- 
cern the  right  paths  to  vialk  therein  ?  As  at  presf^nt 
informed,  we  are  not  prenared  to  receive  these  things. 

J.  L  W. 


.  >  J  ,v-;j.  of  this  as  of  the  other,  Elder  Yv^aller 
ehall  himself  furnish  the  materials  for  the  de- 
Btructioii  of  his  own  argument.  Y/e  perfectly 
agree  with  him  in  the  conviction  tliat  differences 
of  opinion  upon  this  subject  should  cause  no 
estrangement  between  brethren  of  the  same 
faith  and  order.  We  hope  and  trust  it  will  be 
no   cause  of  non-fellowship   between   brethren 


126  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

or  cliu relies.  And  we  also  agree  with  him  most 
perfectly  in  the  opinion  that  it  is  a  question  of 
church  duty  which  must  in  each  case  be  decided 
by  the  Church  to  which  application  may  be 
made  to  receive  euch  a  baptism  ;  and  that 
fi-om  the  decision  of  that  Church  there  can  be 
no  appeal  to  any  earthly  tribunal.  The  ques- 
tion simply  is,  what  ought  the  Church  to  do  m 
such  a  case  ?  Hoio  ought  she  to  decide  ?  By 
what  rule  is  she  to  determine  whether  she  must 
receive  or  reject  f  If  the  Word  of  God  has  de- 
cided who  are  proper  administrators  of  bap- 
tism, the  Church  mu3t,  be  governed  by  its  di- 
rections. If  it  have  not,  then  the  whole  con- 
troversy is  of  no  consequence  at  all. 

We  make  no  issue  with  the  author  until  he 
"  comes  directly  to  the  matter  in  hand,"  and, 
instead  of  discussing  the  question  as  presented 
by  his  correspondent  changes  it  to  this — "  Is 
the  administrator  necessary  to  the  validty  of  hai)- 
tisni  ?  We  do  not  think  the  change  is  calcula- 
ted to  aid  in  reaching  the  true  answer  to  the 
question  asked  by  Richard  B.  Burleson.  But 
v/e  will  answer  it  by  asking  the  reader  to  turn 
to  Elder  Waller's  position  in  his  first  article, 
and  see  to  whom  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
he  contends  the  right  to  administer  baptism 
belongs.  He  there  contends  most  strenuously, 
that  this  right  was  given  to  the  churches,  and 
that  the  churches  cannot  without  proving  re- 
creant to  the  trust  committed  by  Heaven  to 


"WALLER   AGAIN.  127 

their  keeping,  transfer  it  to  any  others.  But 
they,  the  churches,  can  appoint  their  ministers 
or  others,  to  confer  it  for  them.  Now  who  can 
fail  to  see,  if  these  things  are  so,  then  the  "  ad- 
ministrator" is  ^^  necessary/'  And  that  ho 
must  be  an  administrator  apj^ointed  hy  a  true 
cliurcli — by  a  church  to  which  Christ  comrcitted 
the  ordinance.  This  is  all  we  contend  for.  If 
this  be  granted,  then  it  must  follow  that  the 
baptism  conferred  by  one  who  was  not  author-^ 
ized  hy  such  a  church,  is  of  necessity  invalid. 
To  suppose  the  contrary  is  to  suppose  that 
Christ  gave  the  right  to  confer  baptism  exclu" 
sively  to  his  churches.  And  yet,  those  who  are 
not  merabers  of  those  churches,  and  who  have  no 
avihoi'ity  from  those  churches,  of  whom  those 
churches  have  no  knov/ledge,  and  over  wliom 
they  have  no  control,  have  the  same  right  to 
baptize,  which  those  churches  have  to  which 
Christ  committed  the  sole  and  only  authority 
in  the  case.  But  this  is  an  absurdity,  and  a 
contradiction  in  terms,  and  cannot  possibly  be 
true.  Whatever  difficulties  lie  upon  the  other 
side,  they  must  be  less  than  this. 

Elder  Waller  represents  us  as  contending 
that  "/7«e  administrcdor  must  he  a  minister  in 
good  standing  in  a  gospel  church,  or  rcdher,  he 
must  he  a  regidar  Baptist  minister. 

We  do  not  take  this  ground.  We  say  that 
the  validity  of  the  act,  so  far  as  regards  the 
administrator,  does   not  depend  upon  his  hap- 


128  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

tism,  or  upon  his  ordination,  but  upon  the 
authority  to  haptizej  which  he  has  received  from 
the  GJmrch.  If  these  Pedohaptist  Churches 
are  tyue  churches  of  Christ,  then  their  immer- 
Bion  is  valid  baptism.  They  have  the  same 
right  as  Baptist  Churches,  and  their  ministers 
the  same  right  as  Baptist  ministers. 

If  they  are  7iot  true  churches,  then,  upon 
Elder  \Valler's  own  showing,  Christ  did  not 
give  to  thejn  the  authority  to  administer  bap- 
tisu),  and  they  could  not  confer  such  authority 
upon  their  ministers.  They,  or  their  ministers 
could  only  receive  it  from  those  to  whom  Christ 
gave  it  in  charge — that  is  from  some  true 
cliurcli— but  this  authority,  we  contend,  has 
not  been  ecnfe red  on  them  or  their  ministers, 
by  any  true  church,  and  therefore,  if  they  bap- 
tize, they  do  it  without  authority,  and  against 
eiuthority — and  thus  the  act  is  illegal  and  un- 
scriptural,  which  is  what  we  mean  by  saying  it 
is  invalid. 

We  do  not  base  our  argument  upon 'the  as- 
sumption "  that  a  man  can  not  .give  what  he 
has  7iot  received,"  as  the  author  seems  to  thiuk. 
Our  position  is  that  a  man  can  not  perform  in 
the  Kingdom  of  Christ  an  o^i-cial  act  for  which 
he  has  no  authority  from  the  King.  It  is  not 
because  he  is  not  baptized,  but  because  he  is 
not  authorized,  that  his  work  is  invalid.  An 
immersed  minister  of  a  Pedohaptist  Church, 
ha.s  no  more  right  to  baptize  than  one  who  is 


WALLER   AGAIN.  129 

nnimmersedj  no  more  than  an  excluded  Baptist 
minister  would  have.  But  now  if  we  contend, 
as  Elder  Waller  does,  that  all  authority  in  the 
premises,  was  given  in  charge  to  the  true  church- 
es of  Christ — that  the  churches  may  authorize 
their  ministers,  or  other  members,  to  perform 
it  as  their  servants,  and  on  their  behalf,  and  that 
the  churches  cannot  go  outside  their  member- 
ship, and  authorize  strangers  to  do  it  for  them, 
as  we  think  toe  have  clearly  proved,  how  will 
we  dispose  of  that  fearful  array  of  difficidtieSy 
or  those  tremendous  "  consequences"  which 
must  flow  from  our  position  ?  These,  we  are 
told,  "  shoidd  he  disjKcssioJiately  exawined  and 
jprayerfidly  embraced  or  rejected.  They  are 
three. 

The  first  is,  that  if  r.  perfectly  authorized 
"  administrator  is  necessary  now  he  was  always 
necessary."  We  will  presently  admit  the  fact. 
And  will  now  only  vary  the  expression,  by  say- 
ing that  if  a  properly  qualified  administrator 
was  ever  necessary,  he  is  necessary  noio.  And 
therefore,  if  baptism  confers d  by  Jewish  priests, 
or  any  other  rejectors  of  the  ordinance  of  Christ, 
was  not  ^^jalid  baptism  in  the  Apostle's  days,  it 
is  not  now — never  has  been  since  their  day,  and 
never  can  be. 

And  further,  if  the  Lord  ever  determined  who 
should  adminster  baptism,  he  did  it  in  full  view 
of  all  the  difficulties  and  consequences  which 
would   grow  out   of  his  instructions.     The  ex- 


130  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

istence  of  societies  claiming  to  be  his  churclies, 
yet  rejecting  his  baptism,  was  perfect!}'-  foreseen 
hy  the  Lord  v/hen  he  gave  the  authority  to  ad- 
minister baptism  to  his  chm-ches.  If,  therefore, 
he  made  no  exception  in  their  favor,  it  would 
eeem  to  be  certain  that  he  intended  none  ever 
should  be  made.  He  knew  that  Antichrist  would 
claim  to  bo  the  ruler  in  his  stead,  and  would 
change  laws  and  ordinances.  He  knew  that 
good  men  would  receive  through  ignorance  or 
prejudice,  the  baptism  of  the  Pope,  instead  of 
nis.  He  knew  all  the  disorder  and  confusion 
which  would  ensue,  and  must  have  seen  how 
very  easily  all  this  might  be  rectified,  (as  some 
think,)  by  sim.ply  giving  authority  '^to  baptize 
to  those"  who  would  not  be  baptized,  or  to  those 
who  v^ere  baptized  in  infancy  and  unbelief. 
And  yet  according  to  Elder  Waller's  ov/n  show- 
ing he  gave  this  authority  only  to  his  own  true 
churches,  and  was  willing  to  risk  all  these  con- 
sequences, hov7  terrible  soever  they  may  now 
appear.  We  feel  disposed  upon  this  question, 
to  stand  upon  the  same  ground  that  Elder  W. 
stands  on,  in  regard  to  ordination.  "V-,  e  will 
abide  by  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church. 

In  his  review  of  Wajdand,  on  the  ordination 
of  ministers,  [Western  Bap.  Review,  Vol.  3,  p. 
140,]  he  asks  emphatically:  "i^nd  where  shall 
we  go,  if  Vv'c  cut  loose  from  the  primtive  church.? 
If  we  must  not  follow  the  apostles,  who  are  to 
bo  our  leaders.?     If  the  New   Testament   has 


WALLER   AGAIN.  131 

committed  the  duty  of  setting  men  apart  to  the 
ministerial  office  to  no  one — if  this  is  a  matter 
wholly  governed  by  men's  ■  varying  circum- 
stances—why then  the  ordinations  by  the  Pope 
of  his  swarm  of  emissaries,  is  just  as  right  and 
valid,  and  divine,  as  those  recommended  in  the 
essay  before  us.  ^'  To  adopt  a  different  course,'^ 
he  thinks,  '^would  strike  fatally  at  the  very  foun- 
dations of  all  that  is  essential  to  Protestantism, 
and  if  admitted,  will  force  us  to  surrender  the 
fortress  so  long  defended  against  the  assaults  of 
the  Papists — that  the  Bible  ia  the  only  rule  of 
our  faith  and  practice  in  matters  of  religion.'^ — 
P.  136.  Like  him,  we  ar«  determined  to  abide 
by  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church.  And 
this,  he  said  in  his  first  essay,  '"was  clear.'' 
*'The  path  in  which  the  holy  men  of  old  v^alk- 
ed,  is  so  plain,  that  a  wayfaring  man,  though  a 
fool,  need  not  err  therein."  We  fully  agree 
with  him  when  he  says,  in  the  answer  to  Way- 
land,  quoted  above,  "  The  last  commission  of 
our  Lord  was  certainly  designed  to  be  executed 
by  some  one.  It  was  not  a  mere  blank.  It  was 
not  couiposed  of  mere  words  of  empty  sound.  It 
was  addressed  to  somehodi/.*'  He  is  speaking  of 
it  as  a  commission  to  preach,  but  it  is  equally 
a  commission  to  baptize.  If,  as  a  commission 
to  preach,  it  was  addressed  to  somebody,  and 
was  designed  to  designate  somebody  by  divine 
appointment  to  the  duty  of  j)reaching,  it  must 
equally  have  designated  some  one  to  the   duty 


132  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

of  baptizing.  The  two  were  united.  And 
what  God  hath  joined  together,  let  not  man 
put  asunder.  ^'It  imposes  a  duty/'  he  goes  on 
to  say,  "which  clearly  implies  an  obligation 
resting  somewhere.  If  so,  then  it  creates  an 
office,  or  recognizes  one  already  in  existence. 
Hence  we  find  in  the  Scriptures,  the  names 
of  many  who  were  engaged  in  the  work  enjoin- 
ed by  the  great  commission.  Nor  was  their 
office  esteemed  then  merely  of  human  expedi- 
ency, adapted  to  the  changeful  circumstances 
of  man.     It  was  regarded  as  divine." 

If  these  things  be  so,  it  follows  that  God  did 
designate  certain  persons  to  baptize.  The  great 
commission  was  addressed  to  soniebody,  and  it 
was  intended  that  it  should  be  the  special  duty 
of  some  one  to  execute  it.  Was  it  addressed 
to  the  baptized,  or  to  those  who  would  not  obey 
its  requisitions  ?  Here  is  the  Scripture  teach- 
ing. Here  is  the  primitive  practice.  This  is^ 
the  way  in  which,  according  to  our  author,  ^Hhe 
holy  men  of  old  were  accustomed  to  toalJc."  And 
when  ha  turns  from  this,  we  say  of  him,  as  he 
of  Wayland,  "He  has  thrown  away  our  flag 
and  deserted  the  tower  of  our  strength.  The 
Bible  has  ever  been  the  stronghold  and  the 
tower  of  the  Baptists — our  glory  and  our  en- 
sign. In  all  things,  we  have  professed  to  be 
governed  by.it.  Deprive  us  of  this,  and  we  are 
as  powerless  as  the  strong  man  shorn  ol  his 
locks.     If  we  must  not   walk  in  the   footsteps 


WALLER   AGAIN.  153 

of  the  holy  men  of  old,  then  we  are  in  a  vast 
howling  wilderness  without  a  light  or  a  path- 
way." 

He  is  talking  of  church  organization,  but 
every  word  is  just  as  true  of  church  ordinances, 
as  it  is  of  organization.  Let  us  beware  how 
we  are  driven  from  the  ^^ primitive  practice,'^ 
and  the  ^^  old  paths,"  by  fear  of  difficulties  and 
terrible  ^^consequences,"  which  will,  he  thinks, 
inevitably  follow  a  strict  construction  of  the 
sacred  word. 

But  what  are  these  *Hhree  consequences  ?" 
Let  us  approach  more  closely  to  them.  Let  us  at 
least  venture  to  look  them  fairly  in  the  face. 
They  may  not,  after  all,  be  so  terrible  as  they 
look,  while  they  stand  like  three  grim  giants, 
parraded  one  behind  the  other,  in  this  essay. 

1st.  The  first  is,  that  if  a  properly  qualified 
administrator  is  needful  now,  he  always  was. 
We  see  nothing  very  fearful  in  this.  We  freely 
grant  it  all.  Nor  do  we  urge  the  plea  of  neces- 
sity. We  agree  with  him  in  saying  that  what 
cannot  be  done,  is  not  required.  And  that  if  a 
man  cannot  find  a  right  administrator — one  au- 
thorized according  to  the  Scriptures — he  is  not 
bound  to  be  baptized.  He  may  not  baptize  him- 
self, or  call  upon  an  alien  to  introduce  him  into 
the  kingdom.  When  the  deed  cannot  be  done, 
God  will   accept  the  will  for  the  deed. 

2nd.  But  the  second  consequence,  which  gives 
the  first  all  the  importance  that  it  can  possess, 
12 


134  PEDOBAi'TIST  IMMEBSIONS. 

looks  at  first  view  more  serious.  It  is,  that  noio, 
no  one  can  know  tliat  he  has  been  baptized. 
And  why  ?  Simply  because  he  cannot  be  assur- 
ed that  there  is  not  somewhere  in  the  long  gone 
past,  a  false  or  broken  link  in  the  baptismal 
chain.  I  was  baptized  bj  a  baptist  minister, 
but  I  do  not  know  whether  he^vas  rightly  bap- 
tized or  not.  He  may  hav3  been  baptized  by 
a  Mormon,  by  a  Pedobaptict,  by  a  Keformer;  or 
for  aught  I  can  certai'iil;;  know,  it  may  be  that 
he  forged  his  papers,  and  imposed  himself  upon 
the  church  as  a  baptised  man,  when  in  fact,  ho 
had  not  been  baptized  at  all.  Now,  if  anything 
had  occurred  in  his  case,  or  in  the  case  of  any 
of  his  predecessors,  in  the  succession,  as  I  traco 
it  back  towards  the  apostles,  would  it  not  vitiate 
his  baptism — render  it  null  and  void,  the  same 
as  though  he  had  not  been,  and  as  one  not  baptiz- 
ed, he  could  not  have  rightly  baptized  me.  This 
is  the  difficulty — what  can  be  done  with  it  ? 
Shall  we  not  quietly  retreat  from  before  its 
frightful  visage,  and  confess  that  we  were  wrong 
in  our  determination  to  follow  the  "primitive 
practice,"  and  walk  in  the  "  old  paths,"  since 
they  lead  us  into  such  a  labyrinth  of  uncertain- 
ty ?  Let  us  at  least  take'  one  more  look  at  i^ 
before  we  turn.  It  may  be,  that  what  seems  a 
real  giant,  all  arrayed  in  bloody  armor,  will 
prove  to  be  a  harmless  phantom. 

First,  therefore,  I  remark  that  this  difficulty 
grows  out  of  a  mistaken  view  of  our  position, 


■WALLER  AGAIN.  135 

whicli  is  not  that  the  want  of  baptism  invali- 
dates the  act.  hut  the  want  or  authority  from 
him  who  commanded  it.  This  authority,  Elder 
Waller  says,  was  given  not  to  the  unbaptized, 
but  to  the  churches  ;  and  that  the  churches 
cannot  transfer  it  to  their  ministers,  or  any 
body  else.  By  which  he  evidently  means,  that 
they  cannot  so  divest  hemselves  of  it  and  so 
invest  others  with  it,  that  these  others  will  be 
competent  to  administer  baptism  independently 
of  them,  and  without  direct  authoiity  delegated 
to  them  by  the  churches.  It  follows  that  un- 
less baptism  todmlnistered  vvithout  Christ's  au- 
thority, and  against  his  authority  is  legal  and 
valid  baptism,  no  br.ptism  can  be  legal  and 
valid  unless  it  was  thus  aiithcrized  by  a  true 
church  of  Christ ;  and  if  Pedcbaptist  societies 
are  not  true  churchsS;  then  baptism  adniinister- 
ed  by  them  or  by  their  authority,  is  not  legal 
and  valid  baptism.  And  this  would  be  equally 
true,  even  though  they  should  essay  to  confer 
the  authority  upon  a  baptized  man.  What, 
then,  is  the  real  difilculty  in  the  case  ?  It  is  not 
to  ascertain  whether  my  baptizer  was  himself 
baptized,  but  whether  he  had  authority  from  a 
true  church  to  baptize  me.  The  baptism  con- 
fered  by  an  excluded  or  deposed  baptist  minis- 
ter, would  be  no  more  valid  than  that  conferred 
by  an  unbaptized  or  Pedobaptist  minister,  be- 
cause such  a  one  would  have  no  authority  to 
administer  baptism.     To  hioio  if  I  have  been 


136  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

baptized,  therefore,  it  is  only  necessary  for  me 
to  know  that  I  have  been  immersed  in  the  man- 
ner required  by  the  commission,  and  by  the  au- 
thority of  a  true  church  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  do 
not  need  to  ask  a  single  question  about  the  ad- 
ministrator, but  only  this  :  Was  he  authorized 
by  the  church  ?  And  of  this  I  had  the  evi- 
dence of  my  senses.  Since  the  church  which 
received  my  profession  of  faith,  and  upon  whose 
determination  I  was  baptized,  would  not  per- 
mit the  rite  to  be  performed  for  her,  by  one 
whom  she  did  not  approve.  I  have  therefore 
no  baptismal  pedigree  to  trace — no  apostolic 
succession  of  the  ministry  to  establish.  The 
whole  thinp:  is  before  my  eyes.  Is  this  a  true 
church  of  Christ  ?  Does  it  authorize  this  man 
to  baptize  me  ?  If  it  be  not  a  true  church,  I 
do  not  desire  connection  with  it.  If  it  be,  it 
has  authority  from  the  King  to  administer  his 
ordinance.  But  some  one  may  say  :  ''This  is 
not  getting  rid  of  the  difficulty.  It  simply 
transfers  it  from  the  minister  to  the  church. 
You  do  not  indeed  have  to  trace  the  baptismal 
pedigree  of  the  administrator,  but  you  do  have 
to  trace  that  of  the  church,  for  which  he  offi- 
ciates. For  if  this  church  have  been  constitu- 
ted of  unbaptized  members,  or  if  it  be  the  off- 
shoot of  one  that  was  so  constituted,  it  cannot 
be  a  true  Church,  since  a  true  church  must 
consist  of  baptized  believers.  And  an  unbap- 
tized church  could  never  give  origin  to  a  bap- 


WALLER   AGAIN.  137 

tized  one.  Nor,  is  it  any  easier  for  churches  to 
trace  their  pedigree,  than-  for  individuals.'^  So 
here  we  have  the  giant  in  another  shape,  and 
with  another  name — but  none  the  less  a  giant. 

Well,  let  us  not  be  disheartened.  Let  us 
call  in  our  common  sense,  and  look  at  this  case 
as  we  are  used  to  regard  other  matters  of  com- 
mon life.  If  a  man  and  woman  are  living 
together  as  husband  and  wife,  and  we  see  noth- 
iDg  in  their  family  affairs  that  contradicts  the 
Bupposition,  we  are  justified  in  taking  it  for 
granted  that  they  are  married  according  to  law. 
We  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  go  back  and 
Bcarch  the  records  of  the  court,  to  see  if  license 
were  granted  in  due  form.  We  do  not  demand 
the  certificate  of  the  minister  or  ofdcer,  who 
united  them,  and  then  go  back  and  enquire  if 
he  were  in  fact  a  minister  or  a  duly  qualified 
officer".  If  this  were  needful,  not  one  child  in 
fifty  could  ascertain  with  certainty,  whether  his 
parents  wore  born  in  lawful  wedlock  or  not. 

Or,  to  make  .the  case  more  completely  parallel, 
let  us  suppose  that  the  laws  of  the  country  re- 
quire that  he  who  performs  the  marriage  cere- 
mony must  be  himself  a  married  man.  W^ould 
it  follow  of  necessity  that  no  one  could  possibly 
knov>^  that  he  was  married  ?  Would  we  then, 
when  we  found  men  officiating  under  the  law, 
and  having  a  commission  from  the  legal  author- 
ities, feel  bound  to  visit  their  dwellings  and  see 
with  our  own  eyes  that  there   was  a  woman 


138  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

there,  and  then  go  to  the  records  and  ascertain 
that  this  very  man  had  been  married  to  that 
very  woman,  and  then  go  back  and  learn  who 
married  them,  and  make  a  similar  investigation 
in  regard  to  him — and  then  in  regard  to  his 
predecessors,  back  to  the  day  when  the  law  was 
enacted  ?  Not  at  all.  We  should  as  now,  be 
justified  in  taking  it  for  granted  that  they  had 
a  legal  commission  from  the  proper  authorities, 
were  every  way  worthy  and  well  qualified — un- 
til the  contrary  was  alleged  and  ])roved.  And 
even  then  our  marriage  would  be  legal,  if  the 
officer  was  acting  by  authority  of  the  law,  and 
held  his  commission  under  the  law. 

We  found  our  parents  living  as  man  and  wife. 
They  were  in  possession  of  all  the  privileges 
and  immunities  of  married  persons.  There  was 
nothing  in  their  opinions,  nothing  in  their  be- 
havior, which  could  create  a  doubt  that  they 
were  not  what  they  seemed  to  be.  We  there- 
fore take  it  for  granted,  that  they  were,  until 
some  one  shall  bring  positive  proof  to  the  con- 
trary. 

So  when  we  find  a  church  holding  the  doc- 
trines of  Christ,  and  "walking  in  all  the  stat- 
utes and  ordinances  of  the  Lord,  blameless," 
constituted  to  all  appearance  upon  the  heavenly 
model,  we  are  justified  in  taking  it  for  granted 
that  it  is  a  true  church,  until  some  one  can,  and 
does,  show  evidence  to  the  contrary.  We  are 
under  no  necessity  of  going  back  to  ask  by  whom 


WALLER    AGAIN.  139 

it  was  constituted,  much  less  to  trace  its  pedi- 
gree in  all  past  ao:es.  If  it  looks  like  a  true 
church,  believes  like  a  true  church,  and  acts 
like  a  true  church,  we  will  take  it  for  granted 
that  it  is  a  true  church,  as  it  believes  itself  to 
be,  until  some  one  shall  present  some  ground  of 
doubt.  And  •  u-h  ground  must  not  be  vague 
and  uncertain  conjecture,  founded  on  bare  pos- 
sibilities, or  even  upon  probabilities — it  must 
be  something  true  and  reliable.  I  might  say 
to  any  man  :  '^  8ir,  you  have  no  reliable  evi- 
dence that  you  are  the  descendant  of  the  family 
whose  name  you  bear.  For,  even  now,  some 
people  live  as  man  and  wife  who  are  not  truly 
married,  and  in  past  generations  such  things 
were  much  more  common  than  they  are  now. 
The  chances  are  that  some  time  or  other,  nobo- 
dy now,  knows  when,  at  some  place  or  other, 
nobody  now,  knows  where,  in  the  case  of  some 
one  of  your  ancestors,  nobody  now  knows  which, 
the  marriage  covenant  was  violated,  and  you 
may  be  the  offspring  of  shame  and  sin.  Such 
irregularities  have  been  innumerable,  and  it 
would  be  strange  indeed  if  some  of  them  had 
not  by  some  means  crept  into  your  family." 

He  would  probably  knock  me  down  for  my 
insolence,  and  yet  I  would  have  quite  as  good 
ground  for  my  dishonorable  imputations  as  those 
have  who  say  that  there  is  now  no  Baptist 
church  that  can  be  sure  that  it  is  a  true  church 
by  regular  descent  from  Christ  and  the  apostles. 


140  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMESRSIONS. 

I  say  again,  when  we  find  a  "body  of  professed 
believers  which  has  the  ordinances  and  the  doc- 
trines of  Christj  we  are  justified  in  the  absence 
of  proof  to  the  contrary  in  taking  it  for  granted 
that  it  came  honestly  by  them.  If  it  looks 
like  a  true  church,  believes  like  a  true  church, 
and  acts  like  a  true  church,  to  me,  it  is,  and 
must  be  a  true  church,  until  the  contrary  has 
been  established.  The  burden  of  proof  falls 
upon  the  adversaries.  We  do  not  need  to  es- 
tablish our  pedigree.  It  is  for  them  to  invali- 
date it ;  and  that,  not  by  suppositions,  but  by 
facts,  not  by  suggesting  what  was  possible,  or 
even  probable,  but  by  showing  what  most  cer- 
tainly was  true.  \V^henever  this  is  done,  in  re- 
gard to  any  particular  church,  it  will  become 
its  duty  at  once  to  correct  the  vvTong  by  seeking 
a  new  organization  at  the  hands  of  those  against 
whom  no  deficiency  has  been  established.  But 
until  this  is  done,  such  a  church  is  to  be  regar- 
ded as  a  part  of  the  great  visible  kingdom  of 
Christ,  and  authorized  by  him  to  administer 
liis  ordinances. 

And  he  who  says  it  is  no  church  and  has  no 
such  authority  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  traducer 
and  slanderer  until  he  has  made  his  assertion 
good.  When  we  say  of  pedobaptist  societies 
that  their  pedigree  is  false  we  promptly  specify 
their  origin.  We  show  at  once,  and  by  indis- 
putable records,  that  they  are  the  adulterous 
progeny  of  her,  who  in  the  Word,  is  called  the 


WALLER   AGAIN.  141 

Mother  of  Harlots.  We  do  not  base  our  accusa- 
gion  upon  possibilities  or  probabilities.  We 
show  the  time,  the  place,  the  agencies,  all  in 
minute  detail.  We  trace  their  history,  too,  not 
in  the  records  of  their  enemies,  but  in  those 
made  by  themselves.  From  such  sources  as 
these,  Elder  YV'aller,  in  his  essay  on  the  ''  Ke- 
formation,"  draws  an  argument  of  tremendous 
force  to  prove  that  they  are  not  true  churches 
and  have  no  true  ministry,  and  shows  that  the 
Baptist  churches  have  from  the  first  been  the 
true  successors  of  those  established  by  Christ 
and  the  apostles. 

In  that  article  he  proves  that  , 

"  Upon  the  suppogition  that  the  Komish  was 
the  church  of  Christ,  then  it  persecuted  itself — 
wore  out  itself — overcame  itself,  and  was  deliv- 
ered into  the  hands  of  itself  twelve  hundred 
and  sixty  years!!  And  besides,  the  christian 
or  Romish  church,  by  the  above  exposition,  did 
not  begin  for  several  centuries  after  the  chris- 
tian era  !  It  was  not  established  by  Jesus  and 
his  apostles  ;  but  sprouted  on  the  head  of  the 
Koman  beast,  and  grew  into  greatness  and 
strength  by  fraud,  stratagem,  persecution,  and 
horrid  blasphemy !  And  the  church  of  Christ 
is  to  continue  forever.  The  gates  of  hell  will 
not  prevail  against  it.  But  the  Romish  church, 
according  to  the  prophet,  as  explained  above,  is 
to  be  destroyed  before  the  millenium  can  come. 


142  PEDOAAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

'  Tlie  judgment  shall  sit,  and  they  shall  take 
away  his  dominion,  to  consume  and  destroy  it 
unto  the  end/  Destruction,  utter  and  forever, 
and  not  reformation,  is  the  portion  of  the 
Eomish  church.  It  is  not  represented  as  the 
church  of  Christ  in  a  state  of  apostacy,  but  as 
an  antichristian  establishment,  founded  in  hu- 
man pride  and  wickedness — arising  long  after 
the  foundations  of  the  true  christian  church  ' 
were  laid — among  another  people  and  under 
far  different  circumstances — and  whose  mission 
w^as  of  Satan,  to  worry  and  to  wear  out  the 
saints  of  the  Most  High." 

And  having  shown  that  the  reformed  churches, 
that  is  to  say,,  those  commonly  called  Protest- 
ant churches,  came,  by  their  ov/n  confession  out 
of  Eome,and  have  no  ether  ministry,  and  no  other 
baptism,  than  those  tliey  brought  v/itli  them 
from  a  body  that  was  "  neither  the  church  nor 
a  branch  of  the  church  ;"  but  v/hich,  ''by  both 
prophets  and  apostles,  was  regarded  as  anti- 
christian in  its  origin  and  progress,  waging  un- 
remitting and  unrelenting  warfere  upon  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  gospel  and  upon  the  saints  of 
the  Most  High."     He  asks : 

'"  "Did  God  then  leave  himself  without  a  wit- 
ness.? Did  the  gates  of  hell  prevail  against  his 
church  ?  Were  the  foundations  of  his  king- 
dom laid  in  sand,  that  it  yielded  to  the  storms 


WALLER  AGAIN.  143 

of  porsGCution  wliicli  befell  it  during  tlie  reign 
of  the  Man  of  Sin  ?  Or  did  the  church  exist 
and  stand^  as  firm  as  the  rock  of  its  foundation? 
And  if  so,  where  was  it  in  that  long  and  dreary 
night,  from  the  revelation  of  the  Son  of  Per- 
dition until  the  Beformation  of  the  sixteenth 
century  ?  These  inquiries  demand  serious  con- 
sideration and  satisfoctory  answers. 

"It  will  not  do,  by  way  of  response,  to  urge 
the  existence  of  an  *  invisible  church.'  This  is 
to  evade  and  not  to  meet  the  difficulty.  The 
Savior  did  not  build  an  ^  invisible  church'  upon 
the  '  rock'  confessed  by  Peter.  The  church  of 
Christ  on  earth  is  visible.  The  light  of  the  gos- 
pel was  not  given  to  be  put  under  a  bushel. 
The  church  of  the  Kedeemer  is  as  a  city  set  up- 
on a  hill,  whose  light  cannot  be  hid.  It  stands 
upon  Mount  Zion  with  the  ceaseless  and  ex- 
haustless  effulgence  of  the  gospel  day  pouring 
perpetually  upon  its  glittering  and  glorious  tur- 
rets. And  he  is  wonderfully  endowed,  to  whose 
vision  that  is  visible  which  is  invisible  !  Be- 
sides, it  is  certain  from  the  positive  testimony  of 
the  Scriptures,  that  the  adherents  of  Popery 
from  the  beginning,  saw,  and  hence  pursued  and 
persecuted  the  saints  of  the  Most  High — the 
people  or  church  of  the  Bedeemer — those  who 
followed  the  Lamb  whithersoever  he  went — who 
would  not  worship  the  beast,  neither  his  image 
— and  who  refused  to  receive  his  mark  upon 
their  foreheads   or  in  their  hands.     The  Pres- 


144  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

byterian  Confession  of  Faith  (Chap,  xxv.,  pas- 
Bim)  tells  lis  truly,  that  ^  The  visible  church  is 
Catholic  under  the  gospel,  not  confined  to  any 
one  nation/  'Unto  this  Catholic  visible  church/ 
contiues  the  same  instrument/  ^  Christ  hath, 
given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of 
Grod,  for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the 
saints,  in  this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world.  .  , 
There  shall  always  be  a  church  on  earth  to 
w^orship  God  according  to  his  will/  These 
positions  are  abundantly  sustained  by  the  Bi- 
ble. And  yet  it  has  been  too  common,  even 
with  the  most  acute  and  accurate  observers, 
when  casting  their  eyes  back  through  the  gloom 
of  the  dark  ages,  to  conclude,  at  the  first  glance 
that  the  altars  of  Grod  were  then  all  cast  down, 
and  that  none  were  left  as  witnesses  of  the 
trath  and  worshippers  of  the  Most  High.  But 
upon  a  more  prolonged  and  careful  examina- 
tion, they  have  been  enabled  to  discern,  in  the 
fastnesses  of  the  mountains  and  in  the  recesses 
of  the  wilderness,  the  altar  fires  of  our  holy  re- 
ligion burniug  undimmed  in  the  hearts  of  mul- 
titudes who  remained  unterrified  by  opposition 
and  unpolluted  by  surrounding  corruption. 
These  were  the  people  of  God  —  his  church 
in  the  wilderness — vanquished  but  not  subdued, 
cast  down  but  not  destroyed.  Like  the  bush  in 
the  vision  of  the  patriarch,  they  were  enveloped 
in  flames  but  not  consumed.  They  had  never 
worshipped  nor  wondered  after  the  beast,  and 


WALLER   AGAIN.  145 

hence  they  were  cast  in  the  furnace  of  persecu- 
tion, heated  seven  times  hotter  than  its  wont ; 
but  like  the  three  Hebrew  children,  they  had 
been  wonderfully  preserved,  and  the  smell  of 
fire  was  not  foun§  upon  their  garments, 

"  The  church  of  Christ,  if  always  visible  and 
if  always  obedient  to  the  will  and  word  of  God, 
as  taught  in  the  Scriptures  and  asserted  in  the 
Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  was  not  iden- 
tified with  the  Papal  or  antichristian  church, 
but  was  distinct  from  it,  and  persecuted  by  it. 
That  there  have  been  true  friends  of  Jesus 
within  the  precincts  of  the  Papacy — men  who, 
in  spite  of  the  darkness  by  which  they  were 
surrounded,  loved  and  longed  for  the  light,  and 
rejoiced  in  the  truth — is  am|)ly  attested  by  the 
records  of  the  past.  The  most  purblind  can 
see  on  the  sky  of  Papal  dominion,  here  and 
there  a  star  twinkling  through  the  gloom,  re- 
vealing more  palpablv  the  dark  and  dreary  night 
upon  which  they  shed  unavailing  splendor. 
These  lights  were  the  exceptions  ;  the  darkness 
was  the  rule.  They  were  not  parts  of  the  Papal 
system  ;  they  existed  and  sparkled  in  spite  of 
it.  But  the  friends  of  truth,  whether  few  or 
many,  within  the  gates  of  Mystical  Babylon,  and 
of  necessity  polluted  to  some  extent  by  contact 
with  her  abominations,  were  not  regarded  by 
*  holy  men  of  old,  as  those  who,  when  the  Man 
of  Sin  reigned  and  rioted  over  the  deluded  and 
downtrodden  nations,  refused  him  allegiance  and 
13 


146  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

endured  the  consequences  of  his  fierce  indigna- 
tion. While,  therefore,  there  were  doiihtless 
ma/ny,  identified  with  the  Komish  church,  whom 
God  regarded  as  his  people,  and  whom  he 
warned  by  his  prophets  to  mme  out  of  her, 
lest  they  should  he  made  partakers  of  her 
pLagues  in  the  hour  of  her  doom  and  desola- 
tion ;  yet  it  is  clear  that  they  were  not  repre- 
sented as  tJie  church  of  the  Eedeemer,  which 
never  was  a  part  and  portion  of  the  Papism — 
which  never  sustained  any  relationship  to  the 
Mother  of  Harlots.  To  deny  this,  is  to  dis- 
card the  visibility  of  the  church,  and'  render 
the  promise  of  God  of  none  effect.  But  the 
history  of  the  true  church  is  obscure  and  exceed- 
ingly difficult  to  trace.  The  Scriptures  so  inti- 
mate. She  was  to  be  concealed  in  the  wilder- 
ness ;  and  the  world  was  to  be  filled  with  the 
admiration  of  her  cruel  and  unrelenting  foe. 
The  world  would  wonder  after  the  beast,  and 
reel,  intoxicated  with  the  wine  of  the  foruica- 
tion  of  Mystical  Babylon.  Thus  teaching  us, 
in  symbolical  language,  that  the  true  church 
of  Christ  should  attract  little  of  the  world's 
attention  ;  and  that  even  the  historian  would 
find  more  to  admire  and  record  in  the  career  of 
her  persecutors,  than  in  her  own  quiet,  unpre- 
tending, and  despised  existence.  This  was  the 
prophecy, — how  exact  and  wonderful  its  fulfill- 
ment ! 

"  The  Scriptures  have  foretold  the  preserva* 


WALLER    AGAIN.  147 

tion  of  the  true  church  during  the  world's  mid- 
night, when  Popery  was  the  world's  despot,  it 
is  our  own  business  to  prove  from  history  the 
fulfillment  of  the  prediction.  Were  there  pro- 
fessed Christians  during  that  period,  then,  pos- 
sessing the  characteristics  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  and  existing  distinct  from  the  Papism, 
and  persecuted  by  it  .^  And  if  so,  xolio  were, 
they  /  In  answering  this  question,  we  shall 
assume  for  the  present  the  existence  of  such 
Christians  ;  and  shall  proceed,  in  the  first  place, 
to  show  who  they  ivere  not." 

And  after  showing  that  "  they  were  not  Lu- 
therans," '^not  Presbyterians,"  nor  yet  Episco- 
palians of  the  Church  of  England,  and  that,  in 
short,  "  no  Protestant  or  reformed  denomina- 
tion can  be  regarded  as  the  witnesses  of  the 
truth  during  the  dark  ages  ;"  that  "  the  reform- 
ed churches  were  not  those  with  whose  blood 
the  Whore  of  Babylon  was  drunk  ;"  that,  "  like 
their  mother,  they  have  broken  dowm  the  bar- 
riers betv/een  the  church  and  the  w^orld  ;"  and 
that  "  they  too  must  fall,  before  the  world  can 
be  converted  or  mankind  can  be  free."  He  thus 
continues  the  argument : 

'^  The    Baptists  are  not  reformed    Papists. 
They  claim  no  kindredship  with  mystical  Bab}-^ 
Ion.     They  are  not  Reformers    or  Protestants 
in   the  historical  import  of  those  terms.  None 


148  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

of  their  distinguishing  tenets  are  of  Komish 
origin  ;  and,  of  course,  cannot  be  reformed,  as 
that  word  is  ecclesiastically  used.  They  never 
wore  the  yoke  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  hence 
never  felt  it  necessary  to  protest  against  its 
continuance  upon  their  necks.  None  of  their 
denominational  peculiarities  are  derived  from 
the  Papal  church ;  or  tend  in  the  least  to  prove 
that  they  are  the  children  of  ^  the  mother  of 
harlots.'  Their  j^ractices  and  principles,  for 
which  they  have  been  so  much  persecuted,  and 
on  account  of  which  they  are  now  everywhere 
denounced,  are  clearly  anti-papal,  and  claim  an 
existence  anterior  to  the  time  when  the  Man  of 
Sin,  the  Son  of  Perdition,  was  revealed.  The 
Baptists  never  received  ^  the  mark  of  the  beast' 
uporj  their  foreheads.  They  never  acknowledged 
the  usurped  authority  of  the  Pope  ;  but  bore 
testimony  against  him  with  their  blood,  when 
he  ruled  in  all  the  plenitude  of  his  wickedness. 
"  This  is  no  idle  fiction — no  arrogant  claim 
set  up  to  minister  to  denominational  vanity.  It 
is  conceded  to  us  by  the  most  eminent  and  dis- 
tinguished of  our  opponents.  That  thechurches 
of  the  first  and  second  centuries  were  Baptist 
churches,  is  confessed  by  the  learned  and  the 
candid  of  the  Pedobaj)tists.'' 

Having  established  this  by  quotations  from 
the  most  reliable  autliorities — such  as  Mosheim, 
Barrow,  Benton,  Riddle,  and  Neander — he  says  : 


WALLER    AGAIIT.  149 

**  This  is  enough.  It  is  the  testimony  of  emi- 
nently learned  men  and  opponents,  that  the 
churches  of  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  were 
Baptist  churches.  We  might  trace  the  exis- 
tence of  these  churches,  step  by  step,  through 
every  successive  age  from  that  time  to  the  pres- 
ent. But  it  is  not  necessary.  It  vi^oulcl  re- 
quire more  time  and  space  than  we  can  now 
bestow.  Besides,  the  existence  of  the  Baptists 
since  the  apostolic  age,  has  been  also  conceded 
by  our  enemies.  The  Baptists  are  not  of  yes- 
terday. Their's  is  no  ephemeral  existence.  They 
did  not  come  into  being  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury ;  nor  are  they  the  result  of  the  Keformation. 

^'  Mosheim  tells  us,  that  long  before  the  days 
of  Luther  and  Calvin,  there  lay  concealed  in 
almost  all  the  countries  of  Europe,  persons 
maintaining  Baptist  sentiments.  And  elsewhere 
he  says : 

"  '  The  true  origin  of  that  sect  which  acquired 
the  denomination  of  Anabaptists  by  their  ad- 
ministering anew  the  rites  of  baptism,  and  de- 
rived that  of  Mennonites  from  the  famous  man 
to  whom  they  owe  the  greatest  part  of  tlieir 
present  felicity,  is  hid  in  the  depth  of  antiquity, 
and  is,  of  consequence,  extremely  difficult  to  be 
ascertained.' 

^'  But  v^^e  have  more  specific  testimony  than 
even  this. 

^' Zuingulius,  a  cotemporary  of  Luther,  and  a 
bitter  opponent  of  the  Baptists,  says  : 


150  PEDOBAPTIST   IMMERSIONS. 

"  ^  Tlie  institution  of  Anabaptism  is  no  novel- 
ty, but  for  tliirteen  Imndred  years  lias  caused 
great  disturbances  in  tlie  church,  and  has  ac- 
quired such  a  strength  that  the  attempt  in  this 
age  to  contend  with  it  appeared  futile  for  a 
while/ 

^'  Cardinal  Hossius,  president  of  the  Council 
of  Trent,  says : 

"  ^  If  the  truth  of  religion  were  to  be  judged 
of  by  the  readiness  and  cheerfulness  which  a 
man  of  any  sect  shows  in  suffering,  then  the 
opinion  and  persuasion  of  no  sect  can  be  truer 
and  surer  than  that  of  the  Anabaptists,  [Bap- 
tists ;]  since  there  have  been  none,  for  these 
twelve  Imndred  years  past,  that  have  been  more 
grievously  punished,  or  that  have  more  cheerful- 
ly and  steadfastly  undergone,  and  even  offered 
themselves  to  the  most  cruel  sorts  of  punish- 
ment, than  those  people.  The  Anabaptists  are 
a  pernicious  sect,  of  vvdiich  kind  the  Waldensian 
brethren  seem  to  have  been.  Nor  is  this  heresy 
of  modern  origin,  for  it  existed  in  the  time  of 
Austin.' 

"  These  concessions  were  written  in  the  first 
part  of  the  sixteenth  century — about  the  year 
1525.  Up'to  that  time,  the  dawn  of  the  Befor- 
raation,  for  thirteen  Imndred  years,  the  Baptists 
had  caused  ^  great  disturbances  in  the  church  ;' 
for  tioelve  Imndred  years  there  had  been  none 
more  grievously  punished.  These  numbers  are 
significant.     Daniel  (chap.  vii.  25)  had  foretold 


WALLER    AGAIN.  151 

that  the  j^eople  of  God  should  he  given  into  the 
hands  of  their  enemies,  and  he  persecuted  ^ until 
a  time  and  times,  and  the  dividing  of  times  ;' 
which  expositors  have  shown  to  mean,  tv/elve 
hundred  and  sixty  years.  x\nd  John  (Rev.  xi. 
4)  says  the  two  witnesses  woukl  prophecy  ^  a 
thousand  two  hundred  and  three  score  [12 CO] 
days,  [or  years,]  clothed  in  sackcloth."  xignin, 
(xii.  6,)  he  says :  ^  The  woman  [the  church]  lied 
into  the  wilderness  a  thousand  two  hundred  and 
three  score  [12C0]  days,' or  years.  Again,  (xiii. 
5,)  he  says,  power  was  given  unto  the  heast  [the 
persecuting  anti-christian  estahlishments]  to 
continue  '  forty  and  two  months' — 1260  pro- 
phetical days,  or  years.  If  these  prophecies 
have  heen  correctly  interpreted  hy  reformed 
commentators,  how  exactly  have  they  heen  ful- 
filled in  the  history  of  the  Baptists,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  Zuingulius  and  Hossius  !  And 
yet  these  men  wrote  in  no  friendship  to  the 
Baptists,  and  vv^ith  no  intention  of  showing  that 
the  gates  of  hell  had  never  prevailed  against 
the  church. 

''  The  reader  will  remark,  too,  that  the  time 
of  the  persecution  of  the  Baptists  as  fixed  hy 
these  writers,  takes  our  history  hack  to  that 
period,  near  the  apostolic  age,  when,  as  we  have 
shown,  it  is  conceded  hy  all  candid,  competent 
judges,  that  the  sentiments  of  the  Baptists 
almost  univ'.rsally  ohtained.  [See  Orchard's 
Church  History.] 


152  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

^'  Witli  one  other  cjuotation  and  vv'e  will  biing 
this  article  to  a  close. 

'^Dr.  Ypeig,  Professor  of  Theology  in  the 
University  of  Groningen,  and  the  Kev.  J.  J. 
Dermout,  chaplain  to  the  King  of  Netherlands, 
the  highest  authority  in  the  Dutch  Reformed 
church,  in  their  ^Account  of  the  origin  of  the 
Dutch  BajjtistSj  says : 

"  ^  We  have  now  seen  that  the  Baptists,  who 
were  formerly  called  Anabaptists,  and  in  later 
times  Mennonites,  were  the  original  AValdenses ; 
and  who  have  long  in  the  history  of  the  church 
received  the  honor  of  that  origin.  And  on 
this  account,  the  Baptists  may  be  considered  as 
the  only  Christian  community  that  have  stood 
since  the  days  of  the  apostles j  and  as  a  Christian 
society  have  preserved  j9wre  the  doctrines  of  the 
gospel  through  cdl  ages.  The  perfectly  ct)rrect 
external  and  internal  economy  of  the  Baptist 
denomination  tends  to  confirm  the  truth,  dis- 
puted by  the  Romish  church,  that  the  Reform- 
ation brouglit  about  in  the  sixteenth  century 
was  in  the  highest  degree  necessar}^,  and  at  the 
same  time  goes  to  refute  the  erroneous  notions 
of  the  Catholics,  that  their  comnrunion  is  the 
most  ancient.' 

"  Here  we  rest  our  cause.  The  case  is  made 
out.  The  doctrine  of  refoi-ming  the  Papal 
church  is  unwarranted  by  Scripture  and  unsup- 
ported by  history.     The  church  of  Christ  wag 


WALLER    AGAIN.  153 

persecuted,  but  never  overthrown  ;  cast  down, 
but  not  destroyed.  It  was  built  upon  a  rock, 
against  which  neither  the  powers  of  darkness 
nor  the  seductions  of  Satan  transformed  into 
an  angel  of  light,  could  prevail.  Poor,  perse- 
cuted, obscure,  and  despised  ;  still  the  true 
friends  of  the  Bedeemer  maintained  the  great 
truths  of  our  holy  religion,  unterrified  by  op- 
position and  unseduced  by  corruption.  And 
the  honor  of  being  the  witnesses  for  the  truth 
and  the  word  of  God,  when  the  civilized  nations 
of  the  earth  had  bowed  in  blind  and  servile 
obedience  to  the  authority  of  the  Koman  pon- 
tiff— in  sustaining  in  undiminished  radiance  and 
splendor  the  altar-fires  of  our  holy  religion  du- 
ring the  long  and  dreary  darkness  of  the  world's 
midnight — belongs  to  the  Baptists.  This  is 
confessed  by  their  enemies  ;  and  thus,  in  them, 
is  fulfilled  the  predictions  of  prophets,  and  illus- 
trated that  promise  of  the  Savior,  that  the  gates 
of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  his  church." 
Whatever,  therefore,  other  men  may  say. 
Elder  Waller,  if  he  were  still  alive,  could  never 
say  that  there  has  not  been  a  literal  fulfillment 
of  the  Savior's  promise  to  sustain  his  church. 
Amidst  all  the  thick  darkness  there  has  ever  been 
liglitr  in  the  dwellings  of  Israel.  True,  the 
stream  of  our  church  succession  seems  sometimes 
to  be  almost  dammed  up  by  the  dead  bodies  of 
those  who  were  slain  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus, 
and  sometimes   almost  dried   up  by  the  flames 


154  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

that  consumed  them ;  but  j^et  it  can  be  traced, 
according  to  his  own  showing,  all  the  way  from 
the  apostles  down.  But,  as  I  explained  before, 
this  should  not  be  required  of  us.  The  bur- 
den of  proof  does  not  devolve  on  us.  If  we  are 
now  right,  let  those  who  allege  that  we  have 
once  been  wrong,  show  when  and  where.  Let 
them  prove  it,  not  from  the  published  slanders 
of  our  enemies  and  persecutors,  but  from  our 
own  historians,  as  we  prove  what  they  have 
been.  Till  this  is  done,  though  there  might  be 
a  dark  historical  abyss  of  many  hundred  years 
where  I  cannot  discover  a  single  Baptist  cliurch, 
I  would  maintain  such  churches  must  have 
been,  for  He  who  rules  the  universe  declared 
that  they  should  be  :  He  would  build  it,  and, 
against  it  all  the  powers  of  hell  should  not  pre- 
vail. If  I  could  not  prove  it,  I  v/ould  still  be- 
Heve  it  on  his  word.  But  I  am  not  bound  to 
show  to  him  who  presents  the  objection  which 
v/e  have  been  considering,  even  the  Savior's 
promise,  much  less  the  evidence  of  its  fulfdl- 
ment.  I  simply  show  a  church  which,  to  all 
appearance,  and,  for  aught  that  he  or  any  one 
can  show,  is  a  true  church  of  baptized  believ- 
ers, invested  by  the  Word  of  God,  with  the  au- 
thority to  baptize  other  believers,  and  thus 
introduce  them  into  his  visible  kingdom.  Such 
a  church  has  authorized  a  member,  or  a  min- 
ister, to  baptize  me.  That  person  so  author- 
ized by  Christ,  through  this  church  as  his  exec- 


WALLER    AGAIN.  155 

utive,  has  baptized  me,  and,  therefore,  I  know 
that  I  am  baptized,  as  truly  as  I  know,  or 
now  have  any  means  of  knowing,  that  my 
parents  or  my  grand-parents  were  legally  mar- 
ried. If  any  man  shall  charge  that  this  is  not 
a  true  church,  it  does  not  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree affect  my  confidence  until  he  shall  have 
proved  it — and  it  is  no  proof  to  say  that  it 
possibly,  or  even  probably  may  be  that  it  is  not  a 
real  and  genuine  church,  any  more  than  it 
would  be  proof  that  my  Uncle  Joe  had  stolen 
a  horse  and  was  sent  to  the  Penitentiary,  for 
some  one  to  say  that  horses  had  often  been 
stolen,  that  many  horses  had  been  stolen  in  the 
country  where  he  lived,  and  that  some  men  had 
been  convicted  and  sent  to  the  Penitentiary  for 
this  offence,  and  that  there  was  upon  the  mind 
of  the  accuser  an  indistinct  impression  that 
there  was  one  of  them  whose  name  was  Joe 
or  John,  or,  at  any  rate,  that  it  began  either 
with  J  or  G.  When  will  men  learn  to  reason 
upon  subjects  connected  with  religion  with  the 
same  common  sense  that  they  do  about  other 
things. 

We  have  now  examined  this  terrible  conse- 
quence. No.  two,  and  find  it  to  be  no  bloody 
giant  after  all,  either  in  its  first  or  second  form, 
but  only  a  fearful  phantom,  which,  like  other 
phantoms,  disappears  before  the  light  of  calm 
investigation. 

The  third  and  "  last  consequence/'  our  au-' 


156  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

thor  says,  is  that  *^  it  makes  baptism  an  anomaly 
among  dirine  institutions — it  makes  it  a  duty 
which  no  one  knows  that  he  has  performed. 
Baptism  is  thus  rendered  useless  and  nugatory." 
But  this  is  only  a  different  way  of  saying  what 
he  said  before — viz.,  that  no  one  could  know 
whether  he  had  been  baptized.  In  removing 
that  objection  we  have  answered  this,  by  show- 
ing that  we  can  know,  and  do  know,  whether 
we  have  been  baptized,  just  as  certainly  as  we 
can  know  that  there  is  any  true  church  ol  Christ 
upon  the  earth. 

Thus  has  Elder  V/aller  himself,  as  we  prom- 
ised he  should,  furnished  the  artillery  with 
which  to  batter  down  his  own  fortifications. 


ELDER  A.  P.  WILLIAMS.  157 


CHAPTER  YII. 

ELDER    A.    P.    WILLIAMS. 

While  the  foregoing  matter  was  in  press 
some  one  sent  me  a  number  of  the  Western 
Watchman  containing  the  following  article.  It 
deserves  onr  particular  attention.  It  is  evi- 
dently the  production  of  a  candid  and  logical 
mind.  The  argument  ranks  among  the  very- 
best  that  we  have  seen  upon  that  side  of  the 
question,  and  it  has  this  special  recommenda- 
tion: that  it  makes  the  Scriptures  the  sole  stand- 
ard of  our  duty  in  regard  to  this  matter. 

The  position  of  this  writer  seems  to  be,  that 
as  the  candidate  is  responsible  for  himself,  and 
the  administrator  for  himself',  the  church  has 
no  right  to  inquire  into  the  qualifications  of  the 
administrator,  although  it  must  enquire  into 
those  of  the  candidate.  If  the  candidate  must 
not  answer  for  the  wrong-doing  of  the  adminis- 
trator, then  he  thinks  the  Church  cannot  reject 
the  administration. 

But  lest  we  seem  to  prejudge  the  argument, 
we  lay  it  before  the  reader  : 
14 


158  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMEKSIONS. 


VALIDITY    OF    BAPTISM. 

Warrensburg,  January  6,  1858. 

My  views  on  the  question,  whether  Baptist  churches 
should  receive  the  immersions  administered  by  Pedo- 
baplisls  and  Campbellites,  have  been  again  and  again 
called  for.  I  have  deferred  until  now  writing  on  the 
Bubjf^ct,  because  my  ovvn  mind  was  not  fully  satisfied, 
arid  because  it  is  a  question  on  which  I  fc;el  a  great 
delicacy  in  expressing  an  opinion.  It  is  a  question 
on  which  Baptists  have  ever  been  divided,  and  upon 
which  I  presume  they  ever  will  be  divided,  until  we 
fret  more  light  than  we  now  have.  Some  will  be  sat- 
isfied with  the  reasoning  on  one  side,  and  some  on 
the  other. 

In  reasoning  on  the  subject,  great  candor  and  in- 
genuousness of  spirit  should  be  exercised.  The 
points  at  issue  ought  to  be  well  and  clearly  defined 
and  understood.  I  hope  that  my  brethren  who  may 
differ  from  me,  and  may  see  cause  to  controvert  what 
I  shall  say,  will  treat  me  with  that  same  spirit  of 
Christian  candor  and  courtesy  that  I  hope  to  main- 
tain. 

These  things  beiog  premised,  I  shall  proceed  : 

I.  To  notice  the  points  of  agreement ;  and  then, 

II.  The  points  at  issue. 

1.  In  respect  to  Pedobnptist  and  other  organiza- 
tions, we  entertain  the  same  views.  We  do  not  re- 
gard them  as  Scripturally  organized  churches  of  Jesus 
Christ,  though  embracing  in  their  communion  many 
sincere  Christians. 

2.  We  agree  that  their  ministers  do  not  receive 
their  ordination  from  Scripturally  organized  churches. 


ELDEK  A.  P.  WILLIAMS.  159 

This  is  self-evident.  If  the  foregoing  is  true,  this 
must  be  true.     Hence, 

3.  We  view  their  administrations  as  irregular,  so 
far  as  they  are  concerned.  And  now,  the  only  re- 
maining question  is  how  are  we  to  treat  their  admin- 
istrations ?     This  brings  us  to  the  points  at  issue. 

Some  of  our  brethren  tell  us  v/e  canDot  receive  any 
one  who  has  been  immersed  by  Pedobaptists,  etc., 
into  our  membership,  upon  his  immersion,  without 
declaring  by  that  act  that  Pedobaptist  churches  are 
regularly  organized  churches  "of  Christ,  and  that 
their  ordinations  and  administrations  are  S  ;nptural 
and  valid.  We,  or  I,  on  the  other  hand,  think  we 
may.     My  reasons  are  as  follows  : 

1.  In  that  transaclioa  we  call  baptism  there  are 
three  parties.  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  administrator  and  recipient  on  the 
other.  So  far  as  the  administrator  is  concerned,  it 
is  an  act  performed  by  him  in  obedience  to  the  com- 
mand of  Jesus  Christ,  and  for  the  performance  of 
which  he  is  amenable  to  Jesus  Christ.  And,  so  far  as 
the  candidate  is  concerned,  he  receives  the  rite  in 
obedience  to  the  command  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  is 
amenable  to  him  for  a  right  performance  of  it. 
And  now,  as  each  is  responsible  to  the  Savior  for 
himself,  the  one  is  not  responsible  for  the  other.  If 
this  is  true,  then  the  Savior  may  accept  of  the  act 
as  performed  by  the  candidate,  while  he  disapproves 
of  the  administrator.  And  what  he  may  ao,  his 
chtirch  may  do. 

Now,  the  question  v/ith  me  is,  Does  the  Word  of 
God  directly,  or  by  implication,  make  the  candidate 
re^^ponsible  for  any  unknown  disqualification  in  the 
administrator  ?  I  think  it  does  not,  any  more  thfin 
it  makes  the  administrator  responsible  for  any  un- 


160  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

known  disquafification  in  the  candidate.  In  this,  as 
in  everything  else,  "  every  one  must  give  an  account 
of  himself  to  God.  "     Rom.  14  :   12. 

Now  let  us  get  all  the  light  we  can  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

1.   What  do  they  say  about  the  adrainislrator  '? 

The  first  administrator  they  introduce  to  our  notice 
is  John  the  Baptist.  His  commission  was  directly 
from  heaven.  Malt.  21  :  25  ;  John  1  :  33.  It  au- 
thorized the  baptism  of  those  wl>o  brought  forth 
fruits  suitable  to  repentance,  Matt.  3  :  8,  and 
pledo;ed  themselves  to  believe  on  the  coming  Messi- 
ah, Acts  19:  4.  But  many  of  them  did  not  believe 
on  him,  and  thus  proved  recreant  to  their  plighted 
obligations.  Was  John  amenable  for  this  ?  I  pre- 
sume not.  He  could  only  look  at  the  outward  ap- 
pearance. It  was  for  them,  not  for  him,  to  account 
for  the  reality  of  their  profession. 

The  next  passage  that  says  any  thing  about  the 
administrators  of  the  rite  is  in  John  4  :  2.  This 
passage  simply  tells  us  Jesus'  disciples  baptized.  It 
is  to  be  presumed  that  they  baptiz«-:d  some  who  af- 
terwards proved  themselves  to  be  insincere.  See 
John  6  :  66.  But  were  they  responsible  for  having 
thus  administered  the  rite  to  unqualified  persons? 
Not  if  they  were  unapprised  ol"  the  disqualifica- 
tion. 

The  next  passage  wortliy  of  notice  is  Matt.  28:  19: 
*'Cto  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  etc.  We 
all  regard  this  as  the  low  of  baptism,  especially  so 
far  as  *' all  nations"  are  concerned.  Baptism,  like 
the  Gospel,  had  before  been  confined  to  the  "lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.  "  But  now  it,  like  the 
Gospel,  was  extended  to  all  nations.  This  law, 
therefore,  makes  no  change  either  in  administrator 


ELDER  A.  r.  WILLIAMS.  161 

or  subject.  Before,  the  Savior's  disciples  baptized 
the  discipled.  They  must  still  do  so.  And  hence, 
though  these  words  were  spoken  to  the  Apostles,  the 
authority  to  teach  or  to  baptize  was  not  confined  to 
them.  The  example  of  Philip  (Acts  8  :  35.  38) 
fully  shows  ihis.  And  it  is  this  fact,  I  presume,  that 
has  caused  the  seeming  neglect  to  tell  u?,  in  so  many 
instances  of  baptisra,  who  the  adrainistrators  were. 
Acts  2  :  41,  tells  U-,  "As  many  as  gladly  leceiyed 
Peter's  word  were  baptized,"  but  it  does  not  tell  us 
by  whom  they  were  baptized.  So  Acts  10:  48,  tells 
us  Peter  conDrnanded  Cornelius  and  his  friends  who 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  with  hiiLn,  to  be  baptized, 
but  it  does  not  specify  by  whom.  And  in  Acts  19  : 
3,  Paul  inquires  of  the  twelve  disciples  he  found  at 
Ephesus,  ''unto  ivhat  were  ye  baptized,"  but  not  by 
lohom  were  ye  baptized.  All  this  goes  to  show  to 
me  that  more  stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  i\iQ  fact  of  the 
baptism  than  the  administrator  of  it. 

The  following  passage  contains  direct  injunctions 
wi*h  respect  to  the  recipients  of  the  rite.  Acts  2  :  38: 
"  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  repent  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,"  etc.  Now,  can  you  infer  from 
this  passage  that  these  persons  were  to  be  concerned 
abcuL  any  thing  but  their  own  qualiiicatioas  in  the 
caf-e?  Must  they  go  about  invesiigating  the  ques- 
tion of  administratorship?  Or  were  they  concerned 
simply  with  the  thing  commanded— be  bip-ized  ? 

Acts  10:  48:  ''And  he  commandfd  them  to  be 
baptiz-d  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  "  Now  what  was 
the  thing  commanded  here?  To  investigate  the 
question  of  administratorship  ?  l^o  \  he  baptized. 
Now  1  think  that  as  tivo  commands  are  giv^en,  the  one 
having  respect  to  the  administrator,  and  the  other 
having  respect  to  the  subject,  it  is  the  business  of  the 


162  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

administrator  to  see  to  it  tLat  he  is  doing  his  duty,  and 
it  is  the  business  of  the  candidate  to  see  toit,  ihathe  is 
doing  his,  while  each  is  not  responsible  for  the  other. 
If  the  administrator  assumes  an  office  that  does  not 
belong  to  him,  as  does  every  unconverLtd,  uncalled 
preacher  to  God,  he  is  responsible.  Or  if  a  Pedobap- 
list  minister  baptized  without  being  himself  baptized, 
or  without  really  believing  the  Bible,  enjoins  immer- 
sion, to  God  he  is  responsible.  If  a  candidate  pre- 
sents himself  for  baptism,  while  still  in  his  sins* — 
knowing  his  heart  not  to  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God 
— to  God  he  is  responsible.  But  if  the  administrator 
is  really  converted — called  of  God  to  the  ministry 
and  regularly  set  apart  by  the  Church,  and  baptizes 
the  professedly  taught  disciples,  he  does  his  duty,  and 
God  accepts  of  his  service.  Philip  obeyed  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  as  much  in  baptising  Simon  as  he  did  in 
baptizing  ■  the  other  believing  Samaritans,  because 
he  regarded  Simon  at  the  time  as  being  a  believer 
as  much  as  he  did  them.  Still,  Simon  was  very 
culpahU  in  receiving  the  rite,  because  he  knew  him- 
self to  be  insincere.  So,  if  the  candidate  is  converted 
— has  just  views  of  the  symbolical  import  ond  obliga- 
tions of  the  rite — and  through  a  sincere  desire  to  obey 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  receives  it — though  di>quali- 
fication  mv\y  attach  to  the  administrator — the  Savior 
accepts  of  the  act.  The  man  is  really  baptized, 
thoucrh  the  administrator  is  culpable. 

This,  it  does  seem  to  me,  is  a  proper  and  Scriptu- 
ral view  of  the  subject.  Hence  I  am  in  favor  of  the 
reception  of  immersed  persons  coming  to  us  from 
other  denominations,  provided  they  give  evidence  of 
having  been  converted — true  believers  at  the  lime  of 
their  baptism,  and  of  their  soundneis  in  the  faith. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  view  of  the  subject  cannot 


ELDER  A.  r.  WILLIAMS.  163 

be  gainsayed,  unless  the  position  can  be  maintahied 
that  the  candidate  raust  answer  for  the  administrator. 
And  let  that  position  be  once  established,  and  the 
most  fearful  consequences  must  follow.  It  is  impos- 
sible fur  one  to  knoio  that  the  man  who  is  about  to 
bapiize,  or  who  has  baptized  him,  was  really  cnlled 
of  God  to  the  work.  It  is  impossible  for  him  to 
know  that  there  is  not  a  link  wanting  in  the  chain 
somewhere.  And  hence,  after  all,  none  of  us  may  be 
validly  baptized! 

Besides,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  validity  of  the  rite, 
so  far  as  the  candidate  is  coucerned,  depends  upon 
his  qualification  for  it,  and  the  view  he  had  of  its  na- 
ture and  obligations  at  the  time  of  receiving  it. 

Suppose  one  who  has  been  immersed  comes  before 
the  Church  for  membership  and  gives  satisfaction  on 
the  following  points : 

i .  That  previous  to  his  baptism  he  was  led  as  a  pen- 
itent tojrust  in  Jesus  Christ  for  salvation,  and  real- 
ized in  his  own  consciousness  the  joys  of  his  salva- 
tion. 

2.  That  he  had  been'immersed  because  he  felt  it 
to  be  Ids  duty  to  declare  in  that  act  his  death  to  sin, 
his  union  with  Christ  in  his  death,  burial  and  resur- 
rection. 

3.  That  he  felt  bound  by  that  act  henceforth  to 
walk  in  newness  of  life  ;  that  his  baptism  was  thus  to 
him  the  "  answer  of  a  good  conncier.ce  toward  God." 

4.  Thatafteripvesiigating  our  views  of  Church  or- 
ganization, doctrine,  discipline,  etc.,  and  comparing 
them  with  the  Wprd  of  God,  he  felt  that  we  are 
established  on  the  true  foundation  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles. 

Bu'.  suppose  he  felt  ihat  he  could  not  repeat  the 
act  of  immersion,  being  conscious  of  having  already 


164  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

obeyed  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  ifc,  shall  we  fall  back 
on  the  administrator  and  say:  '*  Brother,  you  seem 
to  have  been  qualified  for  the  rite — you  seem  to  have 
entertained  Scriptural  views  of  its  import,  and  you 
seem  to  be  fully  sensible  of  the  obligations  it  imposes 
upon  its  recipient,  but  you  were  baptized  by  an  un- 
qualiiied  administrator,  and  we  cannot  receive  you." 
He  answers  :  **  Brethren,  as  to  the  question  of  qual- 
ified administratorship,  I  do  not  know  that  I  thought 
of  it.  My  great  concern  was  with  myself.  If  the 
man  who  baptized  me  was  not  what  lie  professed  to 
be,  I  cannot  help  it.  I  cannot  account  for  him.  I 
had  to  do  not  with  his  qualifications,  but  my  own  ; 
and  I  feel  that  Jesus  Christ  has  received  me  ;  and 
now,  if  I  should  be  baptized  again,  I  could  assuri^e 
no  obligation  I  do  not  now  feel  that  I  have  already 
assumed,  I  could  declare  no  fact  that  I  do  not  feel 
that  I  have  already  declared.  It  would  be  a  mere  repe- 
tition of  an  act,  without  any  mofal  effect ;  p<,nd  you 
would  not  have  me,  would  you,  to  perform  the  mere 
duplicate  of  an  action  having  no  additional  meaning  or 
force,  not  because  you  find  any  fault  wirh  me,  but 
with  iinothtr  man  ?  If  you  would,  I  cannot  submit.'* 
What  should|we  do  in  this  case  ?  Doom  the  man  to 
seek  membership  in  what  we  declare  to  be  ao/  un- 
scriptural  on^aniz  ition  or  live  in  the  world  ?  This 
is  holding  him  to  a  fearful  account.  No ;  I  would 
£ay,  receive  him  ;  and  in  dqing  so,  h.'^ve  it  understood 
that  the  act  of  reception  goes  not  beyond  the  individ- 
ual. It  neitlier  pronounces  for  or  against  the  aclmin- 
is'rator.  He  may  or  he  may  not  have  been  qualified. 
The  act  only  speaks  for  the  person  received.  "  It 
hath  thi^ extent,  no  more." 

A.  P.  Williams. 


REVIEW  JOF  WILLIAMS.  165 

P.  S. — Bro.  R.'s  questions  are,  in  tliis  article,  vir- 
tually answered.  By  and  by,  they  may  receive 
more  direct  attention.  This  article  is  too  long  to 
•How  of  addiiionai  remarks. 

A.  P.  W. 


We  like  the  spirit  of  this  argument.  The 
writer,  we  think,  is  one  who  seeks  for  truth,  and 
knows  the  place  to  look  for  it.  To  the  law  and 
to  the  testimony.  Here  is  the  ground  on  which 
we  loVe  to  meet  a  fair  and  honest  opponent.  The 
question  must  ever  he,  ^'  What  saith  the  Scrip- 
ture ?  How  readest  thou.?"  And  what  we 
have  now  to  ask  is,  whether  this  writer  has 
shown  any  Scriptural  authority  for  a  Church  of 
Christ  to  recognize  as  true  and  valid  haptisra, 
an  immersion  conferred  by  one  not  a  Church 
member — not  baptized,  and  without  any  au- 
thority from  any  Church?  He  admits  that 
these  "  Pedobaptists  and  other  organizations" 
are  not  true  Churches,^  and  that  their  ministers 
have  no  authority  from  any  true  Churches,  and 
this  beino;  the  case,  he  asks,  "  how  are  we  to  treat 
their  administrations  ?  We  would  have  answered ; 
if  they  are  not  true  Churches  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  have  no  authority  from  Plim  to  administer 
his  ordinance  we  must  treat  these  administrations 
just  as  we  would  those  of  societies  that  did  not 
claim  to  be  Churches — ^ust  as  we  would  treat 


166  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

adDiinistrations  conferred  by  authority  of  an 
Odd  Fellows'  Lodge,  or  a  Masonic  Chapter,  just 
as  wo  would  treat  those  of  a  man  who  laid  no 
claim  to  being  a  Scriptural  administrator.  But 
Bro.  Williams  thinks  not  so,  and  gives  his  rea- 
sons. Let  us  consider  them  fairly  and  give 
them  all  the  weight  to  which  they  are  entitled. 

^'The  question"  with  him  is,  does  the  Word 
of  God  directly  or  by  implication  make  the  can- 
didate responsible  for  any  vnhioivii  disqucdijlca- 
tion  in  the  administrator  ?'' 

This  is  not  precisely  the  question  tvith  us. 
It  is  to  US  a  question  of  Church  duty.  It  is, 
whether  the  Word  of  Grod,  directly  or  by  im- 
plication authorizes  a  Church  of  Christ  to  re.^ 
ceive  that  as  true  baptism  which  was  conferred 
without  the  authority,  express  or  implied,  of 
any  true  Church.  But  we  meet  our  author 
upon  his  own  ground. 

We  answer,  1st.  If  want  of  Church  mem- 
bership is  a  disqualification,  and  the  admin- 
istrator is  notoriously  not  a  Church  meiQ- 
ber,  this  is  not  an  unhiotvn  disqualification  ; 
But  the  administrators  of  whom  he  is  speaking, 
he  admits,  are  not  members  of  scripturaily  orga- 
nized Churches  of  Christ.  2d.  If  want  of 
Church  authority  conferred  in  ordination  is  a 
disqualification,  then  this  is  not  an  unhioion 
disquahfication,  for  these  administrators  lay  no 
claim  to  any  authority  conferred  by  what  this 
writer  recognizes  as  a  t^ue  Church  of  Christ. 


EEVIEW   OF    WILLIAMS.  167 

We  will  meet  him  upon  his  own  gronnd,  and 
he  shall  himself  furnish  the  weapons  for  the  de- 
molition of  his  own  defences.  The  candidate,  he 
says,  is  no  more  responsihle  for  unknown  dis- 
qualifications in  the  administrator  than  the  ad- 
ministrator is  for  unknown  disqualifications  in  the 
candidate.  This  is  the  basis  of  his  very  ingeni- 
ous and  plausible  argument.  Now,  let  us  look 
into  this  matter.  How  is  the  administrator  to 
know  whether  his  candidate  is  qualified  ?  Is 
he  atliberty  to  immerse  without  any  examination 
or  enquiry,  every  one  who  applies  .^  By  no  means, 
he  goes  to  the  Word  of  God  for  instruc- 
tions. He  must  have  satisfactory  testiniony 
that  his  applicant  is  a  believer  in  Christ,  and 
desires  and  intends  to  conform  in  all  things  to 
the  laws  of  His  kingdom.  Why  must  he  require 
this.?  Simply,  because  the  Word  of  the  Mas- 
ter requires  that  they,  and  they  alone,  shall  be 
baptized  who  have  believed,  and  who  do  thus 
submit  themselves  to  be  governed  by  His  laws, 
professing  themselves  to  be  dead  to  sin  and  alive 
to  new  obedience. 

The  administrator  is  not  indeed  responsible 
for  any  unknown  ,and  concealed  deficiencies  in 
the  candidate. — He  may  be  a  hypocrite  or  self 
deceived,  but  he  must  give  the  Church  or  the 
administrator  satisfactory  evidence,  that  he  is  a 
sincere  and  pious  Z>e/{ewr.  K  baptized  without 
this,  he  is  not  scripturally  baptized,  and  the 
Church   cannot   receive  his  baptism  as  valid. 


168  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

Now  if  the  same  law  which  designates  the  qual- 
ifications of  the  candidate  designates  those  of 
the  administrator,  then  the  candidate  is  just  as 
much  hound  to  know  that  the  administrator  is 
qualified,  as  the  other  is  to  know  that  the  can- 
didate is  qualified.  They  are  both  equally 
subject  to  the  same  law.  The  qualification  re- 
quired of  the  candidate  is  a  credible  profession 
of  his  faith  in  Christ.  But  here  comes  up  the 
difficulty.  Has  that  Jaw  designated  any  class 
of  2^e7'sons  as  administrators?  Does  that  law 
require  any  speciiic  qu.Jifications  whatever  of 
those  who  are  to  confer  this  ordinance  ?  It 
either  does  or  it  does  not.  If  not,  then  any  man 
and  every  man  is  just  as  much  an  authorised 
administrator  of  Christ's  ordinance  as  a  Pedo- 
baptist  or  Campbellite  ramister.  The  candidate 
may  choose  any  one  in  the  Church  or  in  the 
World,  professor  or  non-professor,  baptized  or 
unbaptized, infidel  or  Christian.  He  believes — 
he  desires  to  be  baptized.  He  is  not  to  baptize- 
himself  Somebody  must  put  him  in  the  w^a- 
ter,  but  it  is  of  no  consequence  who  it  shall  be. 
No  set  of  people  claiming  to  be  Christians,  and 
regarding  baptism  in  any  form  as  an  ordinance 
of  Clirist,  have  ever  taken  a  position  like  this. 
Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  of  all  classes  and 
names  admit,  and  contend  that  some  qualifi- 
cations are  required  of  the  administrator,  and 
all  except  certain  }v3rsons  among  the  Baptists, 
we  believe^  contend  that  baptism  and  Church 


REVIEW    OF     WILLIAMS.  169 

niembership,  if  not  ordination,  are  essential 
qualiiications.  Whether  they  are  or  not,  must 
be  decided  by  the  Scriptures.  And  the  writer 
of  this  article  very  properly  goes  to  the  Word 
to  learn  "  >vhat  the  Scriptures  say  of  the  ad- 
ministrator." 

He  introduces  us  first  to  John  the  Baptist. 
"  His  commission  was  directly  from  HeaA^en." 
Tliose  who  received  his  baptism,  professed  their 
faith  in  this  fact.  They  received  it  of  him,  be- 
cause they  believed  him  to  be  authorhed  by 
God  to  confer  it.  And  just  so,  every  one  who 
receives  baptism  an  an  ordinance  of  Christ  at 
the  hands  of  any  man,  does  by  that  act  recog- 
nize that  administrator  as  one  authorized  by 
Christ  to  adviiinister  his  ordinance. 

But  what  if  John  baptized  some  who,  un- 
known to  him,  were  unqiyiiified,  was  he  resp  on- 
sible  ?  Our  author  presumes  not,  and  so  do 
we.  What  of  it  ?  "  John  could  only  look  at 
the  outward  appearance."  Very  true.  But 
what  of  it.?  Does  it  follow  that  because  John 
was  not  responsible  for  the  unknoion  disqualifi- 
cation of  his  candidates,  that  the  candidates  for 
Christian  baptism  are  to  make  no  enquiry  at  all 
in  regard  to  the  qualifications  of  those  to 
whom  they  apply  to  confer  on  them  Christ's  or- 
dinances .^  And  if  Christ  has  limited  the  au- 
thority to  confer  it  to  those  persons  possessing 
certain  qualifications,  are  candidates  at  liberty 
to  receive  it  of  those  w^ho  are  openly  and  notori- 
15 


170  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

ously  destitute  of  those  qualifications?  If  to 
have  been  baptized  themselves,  be  a  qualifica- 
tion for  Christ's  administrators — and  immersion 
only  is  true  baptism — then  the  administrators 
of  whom  our  author  is  speaking  are  knoivn  to 
be  disqualified.  They  do  not  pretend  to  have 
been  immersed.  If  Church  membership  be  a 
necessary  qualification,  and  these  organizations 
be  not  true  Churches,  then  the  disqualification 
is  not  unlcnoivn.  It  is  as  ope?iand  notorious,  as 
is  the  fact  that  they  are  members  of  those  socie- 
ties. 

^^  The  next  passage ''  referred  to  is  Jol^n  iv. 
2,  which  simply  tells  us  that  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  baptized,  "xlndwhat,''  our  author  asks, 
"if  they  baptized  some  who  were  insincere, 
were  they  responsible.?''  "  Not  if  they  were 
unapprised  of  the  disqualification." 

We  cannot  go  quite  so  far  as  this,  for  we  be- 
lieve they  -ivould  leave  been  responsible  for  bap- 
tizing any  one  of  whose  disqualifications  they 
might  as  readily  have  known,  as  any  one  can 
know  the  disqualifications  of  these  administra- 
tors, provided  want  of  Church  membership  and 
Church  authority  are  such  disqualifications,  and 
the  societies  for  which  they  officiate  are  no  true 
Churches,   all  of  which  this  article  concedes. 

The  next  passage  mentioned  is  the  great  com- 
mission, which  our  author  truly  says,  ^*  we 
all  regard  as  the  laio  of  baptism."  "  This  law," 
he  says,  "  made  no  change,  either  in  administra- 


REVIEW    OF     WILLIAMS.  171 

tor  or  subject."  "  Tlie  disciples"  were  still  "to 
baptize  the  cliscipled."  It  was  not  confined 
to  the  Apostles,  for  Philip  the  Evangelist  bap- 
tized, and  there  were  many  baptized,  we  knov/ 
not  by  ivhovi.  Sundry  persons  were  commanded 
to  be  baptized,  but  nothing  was  told  them  as 
to  who  should  administer  the  rite.  No  one 
was  charged  "  to  investigate  this  question  of 
administratorship."  All  very  true,  but  what  of 
it  ?  Does  it  follow  that  it  was  of  no  consequence 
who  administered  the  rite  ?  If  they  were  not 
enjoined  to  seek  for  baptism  of  a  Christian 
Church  or  an  authorized  minister  of  such  a 
Church,  are  we  to  infer  that  they  might  receive 
it  of  a  Jew^ish  synagogue  or  a  heathen  priest? 
Does  it  follow  that  no  one  was  designated  to  the 
office  of  baptizing.  Does  it  not  rather  appear 
that  this  point  had  been  settled  by  the  commis- 
sion itself,  and  was  so  well  understood  that  no 
further  injunction  w^as  needed.  They  would 
surely  not  apply  to  those  who  were  not  among 
the  baptized  for  the  ordinance  of  Christ's  bap- 
tism. They  would  not  expect  those  to  confer 
it,  who  luould  not  themselves  receive  it.  What 
if  there  are  here  tivo  commands,  one  to  the 
candidate,  and  the  other  to  the  administrator ; 
one  to  be  baptized,  and  the  other  to  baptize 
him.^  Does  it  follow,  as  our  author  seems  to 
think,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  to  the 
Church  J  whether  the  rite  is  conferred  by  the 
person  commanded  to  give  it,   or  by  some  one 


172  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

else ?  True,  tlie  ma.n  who,  inicalled ,  unqiialifiod 
and  unauthorized,  takes  on  himself  this  respon- 
sihility  to  confer  Christ's  ordinance  without 
His  authority  is  responsible  to  Christ.  And  he 
who  is  baptized  without  the  faith  that  should 
prepare  hirn  for  the  act,  is  also  responsible  to 
Christ,  but  we  do  not  see  how  this  releases  the 
Cliurcli  from  the  responsibility  to  see  that  tlie 
ordinance  is  both  rigidly  conferred  and  right- 
ly received.  The  duty  of  the  Church  is 'some- 
thing separate  and  distinct  from  that  of  the 
administrator  or  the  subject  of  this  ordinance, 
and  as  much  connected  with  the  one  as  the 
other.  As  she  cannot  recognize  a  baptism 
which  was  not  properly  received,  no  more  can 
she  recognize  one  which  was  not  properly  con- 
ferred. So  far  as  she  has  any  authority  in  the 
case,  she  must  see  to  it,  that  the  will  of  the 
Master  is  equally  obeyed,  both  in  regard  to  him 
who  administers  and  him  who  is  the  recipient 
of  the  ordinance;  if  by  receiving  him  as  baptiz- 
ed she  recognizes  him  as  a  Scriptural  believer , 
that  is,  as  one  qualified  to  receive  baptism,  she 
equally  recognizes  the  other  as  a  Scriptural 
administrator,  that  is,  as  one  authorized  to  con- 
fer baptism.  The  candidate  may  be  very  hon- 
est, and  the  administrator  very  conscientious, 
they  must  each  answer  to  Christ,  He  may  ac- 
cept not  only  one,  but  botli,  and  yet  his  Churcli 
may  be  bound  to  reject  the  baptism.  Christ 
as  a  sovereign,  does  what  Pie  will.     His  Churchy 


REVIEW    OF     WILLIAMS.  173 

as  His  executive,  can  only  obey  tlie  written  lo.w 
wliicli  He  has  left  for  her  instructions.  She  is 
not  to  ask,  what  would  the  Master  probably  say, 
if  this  or  that  case  should  come  before  Him — 
or  what  He  will  say,  to  this  or  that  man  in  the 
Day  of  Judgment,  but  what  do  our  instructions 
Avhich  He  left  on  record  in  His  Word  require 
us,  as  His  Church  and  the  guardian  of 
His  ordinances,  to  do  ?  K  he  authorized 
none  but  believers  to  be  baptized,  then  His 
Church  would  violate  her  duty  in  every  case 
id  which  she  should  receive  a  person  as  baptiz- 
ed, or  retain  him  as  baptized  whom  she  has  sat- 
isfactory reason  to  believe  was  immersed  in  un- 
'  jli<:  f  He  was  baptized  not  only  without  His 
.uthority,  but  against  His  authorit}^  So  if  He 
'esignated  any  class  of  persons  to  administer 
the  rite,  the  Church  violates  her  duty  every 
time  she  receives  as  His  baptism  a  rite  confer- 
xl  by  one  not  belonging  to  this  class,  and  con- 
.  C'cpiently  -vi'^TOMt  any  authority  from  Him  to 
confer  it. 

Here  tlien  is,  after  all,  the  true  issue  in  re- 
,  ;ird  to.  this  question.  To  this  point  every 
argument  must  come  which  touches  it  at  all. 
Is  the  administration  of  baptism  limited  by  the 
Word  of  God  to  any  class  of  persons,  or  is  it 
^pen  to  all  who  have  the  physical  strength  to 
■  ip  a  person  in  the  water  and  lift  him  out  again? 
If  litaited  at  all,  liow  and  towltomhii  limited? 
If  any  persons  are  designated  rather  than  others 


174  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

to  "be  the  administrators,  then  Cliurcli  mem- 
bers, candidates  for  baptism,  and  everbodj 
else,  are  just  as  much  boijnd  to  know  who 
are  to  baptize  as  they  are  to  know  who 
are  to  be  baptized,  or  what  is  baptism. 
The  law  is  in  their  hands.  They  must  obey  it  in 
regard  to  the  one  point  as  well  and  as  willingly 
as  the  others.  And  they  are  to  learn  its  re- 
quirements in  the  same  way.  If  we  baptize 
none  but  believers,  because  none  others  but  be- 
lievers are  commanded  to  be  baptized,  and  the 
Church  must  reject  as  no  baptism  an  immer- 
sion conferred  in  infancy  orunbelief,  so  if  certain 
persons  and  no  others  are  commanded  to  con- 
fer the  rite,  it  must  follow,  that  it  conferred  by 
others  without  authority  from  Christ  in  viola- 
tion of  the  law  limiting  it  to  those  entrusted 
with  its  administrations,  the  Church  must  re- 
ject it  as  no  baptism. 

Now,  in  look  nig  over  all  the  Scriptures  to 
which  our  author  refers,  do  we  find  so  much  as 
one  which  intimates  that  baptism  is  to  be  con- 
ferred by  any  one  who  pleases,  whether  he  is  a 
believer  or  an  unbeliever  ?  The  utmost  that 
he  discovers  is,  that  "  more  stress  is  laid  upon 
the  fact  of  the  baptism  than  upon  the  adminis- 
trator of  it."  Bat  neither  he  nor  any  one  else 
will  venture  to  say,  that  there  was  no  limita- 
tion, or,  in  other  words,  that  it  is  not  a  duty 
which  some  persons  may  lawfully  perform  and 
others  may  not.     But  if  it  be  restricted  at  all, 


REVIEW    OF     WILLIAMS.  175 

tlie  restriction  must  be  definite,  some  may  and 
some  may  not.  But  tlie  argument  on  this  point 
we  will  give  in  another  place,  when  we  will 
show  how  certainly  it  was  limited,  and  v/ithin 
what  bounds. 

'^  But  suppose  one  who  has  been  immersed 
comes  before  the  Church  for  membership  and 
gives  satisfaction  in  regard   to   the   following 
oints  :" 

1.  He  was  a  penitent  believer  in  Christ. 

2.  He  was  inmiersed  because  he  felt  it  his 
duty  thus  to  declare  his  death  to  sin,  and  his 
union  with  Christ  in  His  death,  burial,  and  re- 
surrection. 

3.  That  he  felt  bound  by  that  act  hence- 
forth to  walk  in  newness  of  life. 

4.  That  after  examination  he  was  convinced 
that  we  are  the  true  and  only  Church  of  Christ, 
and  therefore  he  desires  admission. 

And  suppose  further,  that  he  could  not  feel 
that  it  was  right  for  him  to  be  immersed  by 
the  authority  of  this  true  and  only  Church,  as 
he  now  considers  it  to  be,  because  he  had  been 
formerly  immersed  witliout  authority  by  one 
not  appointed  by  the  Church  or  recognized  as 
a  Church  member,  but  whom  in  his  ignorance, 
he  at  the  time,  believed  to  be  as  fully  authoris- 
ed as  any  one  to  administer  Christ's  ordinance; 
what  shall  we  say  to  him.^ 

Let  the  reader  turn  back,  and  look  again  at 
Elder  Williams'  very  forceful  statement  on  page,i 


176  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

163  and  164,  and  then  let  him  read  the  follow- 
ing little  story  : 

There  was  a  very  intelligent  and  conscientious 
Welchman   w^ho  came   to   this  country   some 
years  ago.     He  had  an  Irish  friend,  who,  like 
himself,  was  legally  an  alien,  though  long  a  re- 
sident among  our  people.     Just  before  the  last 
Presidential  election,  they  both  felt  that  it  was 
a  duty  which  they  owed  to  themselves  and  the 
ountry  to  become  legally  and   formally  true 
Itizens  of  the  republic,  so  that  ihej  might  en- 
)j  the  privileges  and  pcr-form  the  duties  of  citi- 
;  ?ns.     They  found  the  laws  concerning  natur- 
lization,  and  read,  that  before  they  could  be 
iiivested  with  the  privilege  of  citizenship,  they 
nuist  take   the  oath  of  allegiance.     This  the 
^ Yelchman  was  very  willing  to  do.     His  friend 
j.id  it  over  to  him,  and  with  his   hand   upon 
the  Bible  he  swore  all  that   it  required.     The 
Irishman  gave  him  a  certificate  stating  that  he 
had  done  so.     With  this  he  proceeded  to    the 
:)lls  and  presented  his  vote. 
Are  you  a  native  of  this  country?   asked  the 
'  idge  of  elections. 

No,  sir,  I  was  born  in  AY  ales. 
Have  you  been  naturalized  ? 
Certainly,  your  honor.     Here  is  the  certificate 
gned  by  my  friend  Patrick  O'Donoly,  a  man 
that  loves  this  country  as  weU  as  if  he  had  been 
born  in  it. 

But  the  certificate  does  not  show  that  Pa- 


EEYIEW    OF    WILLIAMS.  177 

trick  was  an  officer  authorized  according  to  the 
law  to  administer  the  oath  and  receive  you  as  a 
citizen. 

Oh,  as  to  that  your  honor,  Patrick  is  no  more 
a  citizen  than  I  am  myself,  hut  we  both  love 
the  country  and  are  ready  to  spill  our  blood 
for  it. 

But  the  law  does  not  recognize  the  official 
acts  of  one  not  a  citizen.  Patrick  cannot  stand 
outside  the  pale  of  citizenship  and  push  you  in. 
You  should  have  gone  to  a  magistrate  duly  ap- 
pointed by  the  government.  No  one  else  has 
any  authority  to  make  you  a  citizen. 

True  enough,  your  honor,  but  then  how  wai? 
I  to  know  all  that.?  My  concern  was  only  with 
v/hat  I  had  to  do.  My  part  of  the  business  was 
to  take  the  oath,  I  could  not  be  expected  to 
enquire  into  the  duties  of  magistrates.  If  Pa- 
trick has  done  wrong  in  administering  the  oath 
when  he  had  no  right  to,  he  is  accountable  to 
the  government  for  himself.  I  have  done  my 
dutv,  I  have  taken  the  oath  and  mean  to  keep 
it.  " 

But  the  oath  given  by  a  foreigner  and  with- 
out authority  is  in  vieiu  of  the  law  no  oath  at 
all.  We  know  nothing  about  Patrick  O'Don- 
oly  ;  he  is  not  even  a  citizen  ;  he  has  never 
himself  taken  the  oath  he  administered  to  you  ; 
we  cannot  entrust  the  right  of  making  citizens 
to  those  who  are  not  citizens  themselves,  and 
^-ave    no    shadow  of  authority  from  the  gov- 


178  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

ernment.  If  you  wish  to  vote  you  must  be 
naturalized  according  to  laiv. 

Well,  your  honor,  but  that  is  very  hard. 
Patrick  told  me  he  could  read  the  oath  as  well 
as  a  native,  and  so  he  did,  I  am  sure  I  swore 
the  very  words,  if  I  should  do  it  fifty  times 
over  before  a  magistrate,  "  it  would  be  a 
mere  repetition  of  an  act  without  a  moral  ef- 
fect," I  would  be  no  more  bound  than  I  feel 
myself  to  be  now.  If  Patrick  had  no  right  to 
give  me  the  certificate,  that  is  his  matter  not 
mine.  I  hope  your  honor  will  not  hold  me  re- 
sponsible for  another  man's  sins.  I  took  the 
okth,  and  that  is  all  that  I  had  to  do. 

But  you  forget,  my  friend,  that  the  same  aii- 
tliority  ivMcli  required  you  to  take  the  oath,  ajo- 
pointed  j^'i^oj^er  2^ersons  to  adininister  it.  No 
doubt  you  love  the  country,  and  really  oneant 
to  become  a  citizen,  and  thought  you  had  done 
so,  but  it  was  your  misfortune  not  to  know  that 
a  foreigner  cannot  lawfully  make  aaother  a  cit- 
izen of  this  countrv,  so  \on%  as  he  himself  re- 
fuses  to  be  made  one,  nor  even  afterwards  un- 
less specially  authorized  by  the  government. 

Well,  your  honor,  I  am  very  sorry  for  it.  I 
wanted  to  be  a  citizen,  I  did  the  best  i  knew, 
and  now  you  drive  me  back  among  the  aliens;  I 
never  can  have  the  privileges  of  citizenship. 

Oh  no,  my  fiiend,  not  at  all,  just  go  to  2l  proper 
officer  duly  qualified  and  legally  authorized, 
and  he  will  at  once  admit  you. 


KEVIEW    OF    WILLIAMS.  179 

But  that,  may  it  please  your  honor,  I  can't 
do,  I  have  taken  the  oath  once,  and  I  have  con- 
scientious scruples  about  ''  performing  the  mere 
duplicate  of  an  action  having  no  additional 
meaning  or  force,  not  because  you  find  any  fault 
with  me,"  but  because  my  friend,  Patrick 
O'Donoly,  took  it  upon  him  to  administer  the 
oath,  when  he  had  no  right  at  all  to  do  it.  I 
do  not  ask  you  to  sanction  his  administration 
of  it,  but  only  my  taking  of  it,  by  receiving  me 
as  a  citizen.  You  do  not  go  beyond  myself, 
yon  say  nothing  at  all  about  Patrick  or  his  cer- 
tificate. That  may  be  all  wrong,  but  surely  you 
will  not  deny  that  I  took  the  right  oath,  and  I 
never  can  take  it  again. 

Would  it  be  a  responsibility  from  which 
any  judge  of  elections  would  shrink,  to  forbid 
this  man  the  privilege  of  citizenship,  and  thus 
compel  him  to  remain  among  the  unnatur- 
alized until  he  knows  enough  of  the  laws  of  the 
country  to  understand  that  an  act  required  by 
law  is  not  performed  at  all,  unless  it  is  performed 
according  to  the  law  which  requires  it. 

Now  the  Church  of  Christ  is  the  executive 
of  His  laws  and  the  guardian  of  His  ordinances. 
It  is  her  province  not  to  decide  whether  His 
laws  are  right  or  wrong,  but  faithfully  to  carry 
out  His  instructions.  Among  the  most  impor- 
tant, all  the  duties  imposed  upon  her  are  those 
which  pertain  to  the  reception  of  members  into 
His  kingdom.     It  has  pleased  the  King  to  re- 


180  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMEKSIONS. 

quire  that  those  who  become  members  shall 
iirst  believe  and  then  shall  be  baptized.  Faith 
is  the  essential  qualification  for  membership, 
and  baptism  the  ceremony  by  which  they  are 
initiated.  In  this  they  take  and  seal  the  oath 
of  consecration  to  Him,  of  allegiance  to  His 
government.  This  is  a  positive  enactment,  a 
legal  requisition  designating  the  form  and  order 
of  admission  to  His  kingdom.  If  the  believer 
is  to  profess  his  ftdth,  this  supposes  some  au- 
thority in  somebody  to  receive  and  judge  of  his 
profession.  If  he  is  to  be  baptized,  this  sup- 
poses there  is  somebody  who  is  to  administer 
the  baptism — just  as  the  requirement  of  a  for- 
eigner to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  supposes 
somebody  authorized  to  administer  it  and 
certify  that  it  has  been  taken.  Now  the 
authority  to  administer  this  ceremony  of  ini- 
tiation into  Christ's  kingdom  is  either  limited 
by  Him  to  those  within  the  kingdom  or  it 
is  not.  If  not  thus  liniitcd,  then  Christ  has 
placed  the  most  important  of  His  ordinances  in 
the  keeping  of  His  enemies.  He  has  authorized 
those  who  will  not  obey,  and  who  ofttim.es 
mock  at  His  ordinances  to  be  the  rightful  ad- 
ministrators of  it,  and  requires  His  Churches  to 
receive  their  work  as  thou2;h  it  had  been  done 
by  themselves.  If  limited  to  those  within  the 
kingdom,  and  baptism  be  the  rite  of  initiation 
into  that  kingdom,  then,  of  necessity,  it  is  limit- 
ed to  the  baptized,  as  no  others  can  be  reckoned 


REVIEW   OF    WILLIAMS.  181 

as  initiated.  If  this  gives  rise  to  difficulties,  the 
Church  cannot  help  it;  if  this  leads  to  hard  feel- 
ings, she  is  not  responsible.  If  some  men  are 
too  conscientious  to  receive  the  ordinances  of 
those  whom  Christ  a-ppointed,  she  may  pity 
their  errors,  she  may  seek  to  convince  them  of 
their  wrong,  but  she  may  not  receive  that  as 
Christ's  b.iptism  which  was  administered  by 
those  to  whom  He  gave  no  authority  to  act 
for  Him  in  regard  to  this  matter. 


16 


182  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS, 


CHAPTEB  YIIL 

THE  CONCLUSION  OF  THE  WHOLE  MATTER. 

Having  now  presented  in  their  own  j;in,ufunor(? 
the  best  of  all  the  [)leadin;j;s  which  we  have  h<^en 
able  to  discover  upon  the  one  siile  of  this  ques- 
tion, and  our  replies  upon  tlie  ttihcr,  we  pr(>pose 
to  make  a  condensed,  but  fair  and  honest  ab- 
stract, of  the  main  arguments  on  both  sid<^s. 
This  is  the  more  necessary,  because  of  the  vari- 
ous side  issues  which  litive  been  j)resented  in 
the  ])learlings  and  the  mass  of  matter  which 
really  had  no  direct  bearing  uj)on  the  real  ques- 
tion under  consideration — so  iha,t  the  atten  i>'n 
of  the  reader  has  often  been  for  ])ages  to'iether 
entirely  diverted  from  the  point  about  v.ddch  we 
are  at  issue. 

But  before  we  proceed,  let  us  distinctly  under- 
stand what  ques'ions  we  have  not  attempted, 
anri  do  no-t  expect  to  d  cide,  in  this  litile  book. 

1st.  We  do  n(»t  expect  to  detenninehere  wh^t 
baptism  is.  We  think  we  liave  setth d  that 
question  in  the  first  volume  of  Theod<»sia  IvDesfc. 
We  here  take  it  for  granted  that  it  is  immersion 
only. 


CONCLUSION.  183 

2(1.  We  do  not  expect  to  determine  here  what 
are  the  essential  features  of  a  true  Church  of 
Christ,  or  wliat  is  necessary  for  mcinbershi[)  in 
the  vibihh  Kiugdoni  of  Christ.  Tutse  quesiions, 
we  think,  are  conchisively  answered  in  the  sec- 
ond volume  of  Theodosia  Ernest  ;  and  we  here 
take  for  granted  that  as  baptism  is  the  initia- 
tory rite  of  the  visible  kingdt»u),  no  one  is  or 
can  be  regarded  a.s  a  member  of  that  kingdom 
or  as  having  any  rights,  privileges  or  authority 
in  that  Kingdom,  iclio  has  not  been  baptized. 

3d.  We  have  not  attempted  to  ascertain 
whether  a  man  mayor  mwy  not  hiwfulfy  preach 
the  Gospel  without  being  baptized.  This  was 
not  necessary  for  the  answering  of  the  question 
before  lis — which  was  not  whether  he  nn*L:ht 
preach  but  wht^ther  he  might  baptize.  If  the 
reader  wishes  to  investigate  tins  question,  he 
will  find  a  ver}^  forcible  statement  of  the  argu- 
ments on  one  side  of  it  in  The  OKI  Landmark 
Re-set,  by  Elder  J.  M.  Pi-ndleton,  and  The  Ques- 
tion of  the  Age,  by  Elder  Jus.  Baker.  No  tbr- 
mal  argument  upon  the  other  side  has,  to 
our  knowledge,  yet  been  given  in  a  permanent 
form.  We  once  began  to  make  one,  but  found 
the  task  too  hard.  In  this  vo^wwe,  however,  wo 
have  taken  it  for  granted  that  any  one  in  the 
Church  or  out,  ba))tized  or  unba})rized,  Christ- 
ian or  inHdel,  might  Jawfully/_>nat7i  as  much  as 
he  tnay  clioose — we  have  only  questioned  his 
right  to  administer  the  ordinances. 


184  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

4th.  We  have  not,  in  this  volume,  attempted 
to  determine  whether  baptism  administered  by- 
one  who  is  u7iordained  as  a  minisUr  or  evange- 
list would  be  valid.  We  may  have  incident- 
ally given  our  personal  o]  anion  upon  this 
point,  but  this  was  not  the  question  before  us. 
If  any  one  feels  interested  in  its  decision,  he 
wall  find  in  the  first  article  of  Elder  Waller  a 
very  able  argument  upon  it.  We  have,  on  our 
part,  taken  it  for  granted  that  the  Church  may 
appoint  any  member  slie  pleas'^s  to  administer 
the  rite.  We  only  contend  that  she  shall  not 
go  outsicle  the  Church  and  outside  the  Kingdom 
and  take  a  man  who  is  not  a  mcember  of  either^ 
and  invest  him  with  the  right  to  administer  for 
her  an  ordinance  wdiich  he  will  not  receive  for 
himself — or  if  he  has  taken  it  upon  himself  to 
do  so  without  her  authority  that  she  shall  not 
recognize  and  sanction  the  act  as  though  it  had 
been  authorized  by  her. 

THE    TRUE    QUESTION, 

And  the  only  one,  we  have  endeavored  here  to  set- 
tle at  once  and  forever  is,  whether  a  Baptist 
Church  ought  under  any  circumstances  to  recog- 
nize and  receive  as  Christ's  baptism,  an  immer- 
sion administered  by  an  unbaptized  adminis- 
trator, and  tvithout  any  authority,  express  or 
implied,  from  a  true  Church  of  Christ. 

The  question  is  one  of  Church  duty,  and  that 


CONCLUSION.  185 

vs  the  form  in  whi(^li  it  must  come  np.  Our 
own  position  may  be  briefly  stated  thus.  Christ 
has  established  in  the  workl  a  visible  kinixdom, 
A  visible  kingdom  supposes' visible  subji^cts. 
There  is,  thtrefore,  some  visible  and  detinite 
line  of  demarcation  between  those  who  are  in, 
and  those  who  are  not  in,  this  visible  kingdom. 
'J  here  must  be  some  means  by  whirh  one  visi- 
bly leaves  the  world  and  enters  this  Kinirdom — 
like  the  oath  of  allegiance  by  which  an  alien  be- 
comes a  citizen.  This  step,  by  which  one  passes 
from  vathout  this  visible  kingdom  to  a  ])lace  with- 
in it,  is  taken  in  baptism.  This  is  the  rite  or  ce .  e- 
mony  of  initiation.  lie  who  is  rightly  haptized 
is  in  it.  He  who  is  not,  is  ou.  of  it.  Now, 
that  none  may  come  in  but  those  who  are  qual- 
ified for  citizenshi]),  the  King  has  given  the 
charge  of  the  door  to  those  who  have  gone  in — 
and  requires  that  they  admffc  no  one  till  they 
are  satisfied  that  he  has  first  been  made  a 
citizen  in  his  htao't.  They  must  have  assurance 
that  he  is  a  pernfent  believer.  Upon  being 
eatisfied  of  this,  they  baptize  him  as  they  were 
baptized,  and  he  is  then  a  member  as  they  are 
members.  Thus,  and  only  thus,  can  any  one 
enter  in. 

But  now,  as  the  King  has  gone  to  Heaven, 
whom  has  He  left  to  attend  to  the  business  of 
(he  kingdom  in  His  absence  ?  Who  shall 
appoint  the  otUcers  ?  Who  shall  receive 
nev/    members  ?       W  ho    shall  depose   or   ex- 


186  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

elude  the  unwortliy  ?  Who  shall  provide 
and  do  all  that  is  needful  for  the  i>urity,  the 
permanence  and  the  e\:tension  of  the  kingdom? 
He  provided  for  all  this  hefore  he  went,  hy  direct- 
ing as  many  of  the  citizens  of  the  kingdom  as 
could  conveniently  meet  together,  to  assemble 
and  organize  themselves  into  a  "  Churchy  "'which 
should  in  its  corporate  capacity  attend  to  all 
these  matters.  It  is  this  Church  which  must 
receive  the  profession  of  faith,  determine  on  its 
genuineness  and  administer  the  baptism.  It  is 
the  Church,  as  a  Church,  that  has  charge  of 
the  door  of  entrance  into  the  kingdom.  This 
is  equally  true  whether  she  acts  by  herself  in 
the  asserahly  of  the  saints,  or  by  her  ofiicers,  as 
elders  or  evangelists.  They  have  no  authority 
which  she  has  not  conferred.  If  they  may  bap- 
tize, it  is  because  she  has  authorized  and  ap- 
pointed them  to  Ifeptize,  and  thu^  receive  into 
the  kingdom  such  as  give  evidence  of  living 
faith; 

But  of  whom  is  each  Church  to  be  coniposed.^ 
It  must  consist  of  those  who  are  members  of 
the  kingdom,  that  is  of  those  who  have  b(dieved 
and  been  baptized.  When  a  person  ap}>lies  for 
Church  membershi})  with  her,  she  inquires 
whether  he  is  in  the  kingdom,  if  not,  she  must 
receive  him  into  the  kingdom  by  baptism  be- 
fore she  can  receive  him  into  her  s}  ccial  "cccle- 
sia,"  or  assembly,  as  a  Church  member.  But  if 
a  sister  Church  has  received, him  into  the  king- 


CONCLUSION.  187 

dom,  Biie  only  asks  to  be  certified  of  that  fact. 
He  must  be  in  th«^  kingdom  before  he  can  come 
into  a  Church  within  the  kin<idom. 

Here,  then,  is  the  point  to  be  decided.  How 
does  one  enter  into  this  visible  kingdom  ?  We 
answer,  by  profession  of  his  faith  and  baptism. 
Who  must  receive  and  judg^  of  the  genuineness 
of  tin's  profession  and  administer  to  him  this 
initiatory  ordinance — those  in  the  kingdom^ 
or  those  without  it  ?  We  -say,  those  who 
are  within — and  we  would  say  this  on  the 
ground  that  common  sense  requires  it  should  be 
so  even  though  there  were  no  precept  or  exam- 
}de  aflf^'cting  the  case  to  be  found  in  the  Word 
of  God. 

THE    COMMON    SENSE    ARGUMENT. 

This  argument  may  be  stated  thus  : 
1st.  If  men  are  to  profess  their  faith  in 
Christ,  this  supposes  that  there  must  be  some- 
hody  to  receive  that  profession.  If  none  are  to 
be  initiated  into  Christ's  visible  kingdom  who 
have  not  true  and  genuine  faith,  this  supposes 
there  must  be  somebody  to  decide  upon  its  gen- 
uineness. \i  baptism  is  to  be  given  only  after 
such  profession  made  and  its  genuineness  de- 
termined, the  same  body  that  is  authorized  to 
receive  the  ])rofession  and  decide  upon  its  cha- 
racter, must,  in  all  reason,  be  supposed  to  have 
the  authority  to  confer  the  baptism. 


188  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

Now,  whom  do  Baptists  recognize  as  authorized 
to  receive  the  profession  of  a  candidate  for  citi- 
zenship in  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  to  decide 
upon  its  genuineness  ?  They  all  aprree  that 
this  is  the  province  of  a  B;iptist  Churchy  and  of 
no  other  h(^,dy  of  people  v/liatever. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  a  Baptist  Cliurch, 
and  nothing  else,  must  be  the  body  that  con- 
fers, or  authorizes  the  baptism  as  the  initiatory- 
rite  of  the  kingdom. 

2d.  There  are,  in  the  very  idea  of  a  kingdom, 
government,  laws  and  subjects.  In  tJils  king- 
dom, Christ  alone  is  King.  The  laws  are  those, 
and  those  onJy,  which  HE  has  given,  and  which 
we  have  recorded  in  His  Word.  The  officers 
are  such  only  as  he  has  ordained.  The  subjects 
such  only  as  HE  has  designated.  The  ordi- 
nances or  observances  such  only  as  HE  has  ap- 
pointed. Now  it  il  admitted  that  he  appointed 
baptism  as  the  rite  of  initiation  ;  or,  at  least, 
that  no  one  can  he  regarded  as  legally  and  for- 
mally iviildn  this  visible  kingdom^  however  well 
qualified  for  admission,  vmil  he  shall  have  been 
bapiized.  Now,  what  says  common  sense  ? 
Would  it  be  natural,  would  it  be  reason- 
able to  invest  vvirh  the  offices  of  the  king- 
dom those  who  were  not  within  it.?  And, 
most  especially,  would  it  not  be  most  egregi- 
ously  silly  to  invest  a  stranger  and  a  foreigner 
v/ith  the  most  important  of  ail  offices — thai 
which  determiues  who  shall  bo  members  and 


CONCLUSION.  189 

admits  them  formally  as  sucli  ?  Would  it  not 
indicate  the  very  rankest  folly  to  entrust  the 
right  to  qualify  and  introduce  the  citizens  to  all 
the  privileges  of  the  kingdom  to  the  hands  of 
tliose  who  would  not  themselves  go  in  ?  Yet 
this  is  just  what  Christ  must  have  done  if  he 
had  authorized  the  unhaptiztd  to  administer  his 
baptism.  The  very  thought  that  he  could  have 
been  guilty  of  such  consummate  folly  is  rejected 
from  our  mind  as  irreverent  and  profane.  But 
we  must  either  receive  it  as  true,  or  else  we 
must  reject  these  baptisms  as  invalid  ;  for  we 
cannot  claim  as  a  valid  baptism  that  which  is 
given  without  Christ's  authority. 

If  Christ  did  not  authorize  these  mem  then 
they  have  no  authority  from  him. 

They  are  not  within  the  visible  kingdom,  and 
hence  he  could  not  have  conferred  upon  them 
this  authority  unless  he  conferred  it  upon  those 
who  were  not  within  it. 

There  is  but  one  way  of  breaking  the  force  of 
this  reasoning,  and  that  is  to  show  that  bap- 
tism is  not  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  visible 
Kingdom  of  Christ,  and  that  men  are  equally 
witliin  it  and  equally  entitled  to  hold  office  there 
whether  baptized  or  unbaptized. 

If  any  Baptist  who  reads  this  book  is  pre- 
pared to  take  this  ground,  let  him  pause  here 
and  consider  what  is  the  necessary  consequence. 
If  h.aptism  is  not  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  visi- 
ble Kingdom  of  Christ,  what  is  ?     If  it  is  not 


190  PEDOBArTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

entered  by  baptism,  how  is  it  entered  ?  Has  it 
any  mark  or  si^j^n  by  which  those  who  are  within 
it  may  be  distinguished  from  those  who  are 
without  it  ?  Does  any  one  say  that  faith,  not 
haptism,  admits  into  the  kingdom.  This  ia 
true  of  what  may  be  called  the  mvlsihh  king- 
dom. The  subjects  of  this  kingdom  are  all 
who  truly  take  Christ  to  be  their  King  :  but  is 
it  true  of  the  visible  kingdom  which  he  set  up 
in  the  world,  and  which  is  designed  visibly  to 
fill  the  earth.  Js  there  no  distinction  between 
the  invisible  and  the  visible  ?  If  so,  what  is 
it  ?  How  (Joes  a  believer  become  visibly  and 
openly  a  member  of  Christ's  people  ?  How 
does  he  visibly  unite  himself  to  the  saints  ? 
How  does  he  visibly  become  invested  with  the 
rights  and  immunities  and  responsibilities  of 
citizenHhi{)  among  the  visible  people  of  Christ. 
Baptists,  surely,  if  not  all  denominations,  have 
always  contended  that  this  is  done  in  baptism. 
It  is  in  this  we  '^  put  on  Christ.''  It  is  in  tJiis  rite 
we  are  enrolled  in  His  army.  In  this  we 
openly  take  him  for  our  King,  and  formally 
renounce  the  flesh,  the  world,  and  the  devil  as 
rulers  over  us.  In  tliis  we  say  openly,  that  our 
past  life  is  dead,  and  we  are  now  new  creatures 
in  Christ  Jesus.  Dead  and  buried  to  sin,  and 
alive  again  in  Jesus.  If  this  be  not  its  injport, 
what  is  it  ?  Let  every  Ba{)tist  answer.  But 
if  it  is,  then  how  can  they  who  have  not  thus 
visibly  put  on  Christ,  who  are  not  thus  enrolled 


CONCLUSION.  191 

among  his  vi^^il)le  people,  who  have  not  thus 
0}H'iily  renounced  all  other  lords,  and  visibly 
espoused  him  as  their  head,  \\o\y  can  they  be 
Ci'unied  as  visibly  and  furnially  the  members  of 
his  kinirdom  ?  To  suppose  they  are  or  can  be, 
is  simply  absurd.  The  man  who  admits  that 
baptism  is  the  initiatory  into  the  visible  king- 
dom of  Christ,  as  every  Baptist  must,  or  cease 
to  be  a  Baptist,  and  who  yet  contends  that 
those  are  in  that  kingdom,  who  have  not 
been  baptized,  is  not  worth  reasoning  with; 
and  he  who  cannot  see  tliat  membership  in  the 
invisib/e  kingdom  can  give  no  right  to  any  pri- 
vilege in  the  vhible  bef(>re  he  enters  it,  must 
make  much  less  nse  of  his  common  sense  when 
investigating  religious  matters  than  he  is  accus- 
tomed to  do  in  examining  other  things. 

What  relation  has  a  true  member  of  the 
invihible  kingdom  to  the  visible  ?  He  is  a  fit 
])f^rson  to  be  made  a  subject  of  it — simply  this, 
and  nothing  more.  Ee  trusts  the  King.  He 
loves  the  King.  He  has  determined  to  obey 
the  King.  He  wishes  to  declare  this  openly,  in 
the  way  the  King  conmianded,  and  thus  be- 
come a  mendoer  and  a  subject  of  the  vi«ible 
kingdom.  But  suppose  he  never  does  it  !  Is 
he  any  more  a  member  than  if  he  were  not  pre- 
] tared  to  do  it,  and  never  had  desired  to  do  it? 
The  foreigner  who  ad()]>ts  a  new  country  as  his 
own,  may  love  the  country,  approve  its  laws, 
underistaad  its  government,  desire  citizenship, 


192  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

and  be  in  all  things  qnalified  to  become  a  citi- 
zen, but  he  is  not  a  citizen  until  he  has  been 
made  one  by  the  i)rocess  prescribed  by  the  laws. 
He  may  be  a  citizen  in  his  heart,  but  before 
he  can  exercise  any  of  the  peculiar  privileges  of 
citizenh'.hip,  he  must  be  made  one  by  the  legal, 
and  formal,  and  visible  renunciation  of  his  old 
allegiance,  and  taking  on  himself  the  new.  A 
man  may  L)ve  a  woman  tenderly,  and  there  may 
be  no  good  reason  why  he  should  not  make  her 
his  wife.  He  may  feel  that  he  is  espoused  to 
her  in  his  heart  as  much  as  though  they  had 
been  actually  and  formally  united  according  to 
the  requirements  of  the  law  of  matrimony,  but 
he  is  not  her  husband,  and  has  no  right  to  act 
as  though  he  were  her  husband  until  the  mar- 
riage rite  has  been  performed.  Till  then,  he  is 
not  a  married  man.  And  just  so,  it  matters  no- 
thing how  much  a  man  may  love  the  Lord  of 
this  kingdom,  it  matters  nothing  how  well*  qual- 
ified he  may  be  for  citizenship  or  office-h(dding 
in  the  kingdom,  if  the  King  has  specified  a  par- 
ticular way  of  becoming  a  citizen,  if  he  has 
prescribed  a  particular  form  or  ceremony  of  ini- 
tiation, he  cannot  become  a  citizen  without 
observing  the  form.  Till  this  is  done,  he  is  no 
citizen,  any  more  than  a  man's  love  makes  him 
a  woman's  husband  bef)re  he  is  married  to  her. 
That  the  reader  may  be  able  the  better  to 
judge  of  the  value  and  force  of  this  argument, 
we  reduce  it  to  the  syllogistic  form.     If  the 


CONCLUSION.  193 

premises  are  sound,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable. 

1.  If  baptism  is  the  initiatory  rite  of  Christ's 
visible  kingdom,  then  no  one  is  or  can  be  a 
member  of  that  kingdom  lulio  has  not  been  hap- 
tized.     This  is  self-evident. 

2.  The  Pedobaptist  administrators  of  whom 
we  have  been  speaking,  have  not  been  bajttized. 

3.  Therefoi'e  they  are  not  members  of  Christ's 
visible  kingdo:in. 

Thus  far,  "all  is  certainly  very  plain. 
/  And  now  the  question  arises  whether  one 
can  lawfully  act  as  an  officer  in  the  kingdom 
while  he  is  not  so  much  as  a  member  of  it.^ 
Vv  hether  in  the  absence  of  all  proof  that  he  has 
done  so,  we  are  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  the 
King  has  authorized  men  wdio  will  not  so  much 
as  be  themselves  initiated  to  perform  the  most 
important  of  all  the  offices  of  the  kingdom,  that 
which  admits  to  and  certifies  the  membership 
of  its  subjects. 

No  other  king  entrusts  the  ceremony  of  re- 
ceiving strangers  and  making  citizens  of  them  to 
foreigners.  Even  our  own  government,  liberal 
as  it  is  in  all  such  things,  never  dreamed  of  au- 
thorizing one  foreigner  to  naturalize  another, 
and  confer  on  him  the  privileges  of  citizenship. 
Ko  society  or  organization  of  any  sort  now  ex- 
isting among  men,  and  having  any  particular 
form  of  initiation  or  admission  to  membership, 
ever  entrusted  the  administration  of  that  form 
and  the  reception  and  initiation  of  members  to 
17 


194  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 


those  \vlio  viere  not  menjbcrs  themselves.  They 
do  not  authorize  men  who  ^yill  not  be  initiated 
to  stand  outside  and  thrust  others  in.  Now 
we  admit  that  it  does  not  follow  of  necessity 
from  all  this  that  he  who  is  the  King  in  Zion 
may  not  have  done  such  a  thing.  His  ways  arc 
not  as  ours.  And  if  there  were  in  His  Word 
satisfactory  proof  that  he  had  given  sueh  au- 
thority to  the  unbaptized,  we  must  believ(>  that 
it  would  not  be  so  silly  as  it  seems  But  no 
one  of  all  those  who  have  reasoned  upon  that 
side,  lias  yet  found  the  chapter  or  the  verse  in 
the  Old  Testament  or  in  the  New  in  which  any 
such  authority  was  conferred.  It  can  no  more  be 
found  than  that  to  make  meiubers  of  little  infants 
"  mewling  and  puking  in  their  mothers'  arm.s." 
Yv^e  do  not  remember  that  any  one  has  pretend- 
ed to  have  found  it.  We  are  asked  to  suppose 
its  existence,  ))ecause  to  deny  it  would,  in  their 
opinion,  involve  us  in  a  world  of  trouble,  as  we 
sliall  see  hereafter.  But  can  good,  sound,  com- 
monsense  suppose  any  such  thing  .^ 

Here  is  tlie  syllogism.  Let  it  be  cautiously 
examined,  and  if  it  be  false  in  either  of  its  pre- 
mises, or  its  conclusion,  let  the  error  be  shown. 

1  The  administration  of  baptism  as  the  ini- 
tiatory rite  of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  is  on  the 
part  of  the  administrator  not  a  personal  but  an 
official  act. 

2.  No  official  act  is  valid  unless  duly  aiifhor' 
ized  by  him  to  whom  the  authority  belongs. 


CONCLUSION.  Vji) 

3.  Tlie  autliorlty  in  this  case  belonp^s  to 
Clvrist  as  Kin-jf,  and  he  has  conferred  no  official 
azifho7ity  in  His  Kingilom  upon  those  tvho  are 
not  members  of  it.  These  men,  according  to 
onr  ])revious  argument  are  not  members  of  it, 
and  therefore  they  have  no  authorit}^,  and  tlieir 
baptism  is,  of  consequence,  invalid. 

SOME  ARGUMENTS    FROM  CONSISTENCY. 

AVe  are  writing  this  little  book  for  Baptists. 
The  question  discussed  is  a  question  oi  Baptist 
polity,  or  rather  of  Ba[)tist  duty.  What  is  the 
duty  of  Baptist  Churches  in  certain  s})ecial 
cases  ?  We,  consequently,  may  here  take  it 
for  granted,  that  whatever  course  will  if  fol- 
lowed out,  lead  a  Baptist  to  abandon  his  peculiar 
sentiments  and  the  cherished  practices  of  his 
den.'mination,  is  a  wrong  course.  Whatever  is 
inconsistent  with  the  known  and  admitted  faith 
and  practice  of  Baptist  Christians,  we  may,  in 
our  reasonings  with  Baptists,  take  to  be  false. 
We  cannot  take  this  ground  in  reasoning  with 
Pedobaptists  or  the  world  upon  such  a  question 
as  the  one  before  us,  for  they  will  say,  it  is 
nothing  to  us  how  contradictory  to  Baptist 
fairh,  or  how  inconsistent  with  Baptist  ])rofes- 
sions  or  Baptist  practices,  the  recognition  of /he 
oliicial  acts  of  the  unbaptized  may  be.  Baptist 
faith.  Baptist  profession,  and  Baptist  -{jractice 
are  all   wrong  together^  and  the  more  inconsts- 


196  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

tent  with  tliem  any  course  may  be,  the  moie 
likely  is  it  to  be  right.  But  in  reasoning  with 
a  Baptist,  we  may  take  it  for  granted,  that  he 
believes  the  Baptists  are  right,  and  that  what- 
ever is  plainly  and  palpably  unbaptistic  must 
be  WTong. 

Now,  I  propose  to  show  that,  iftlie  immersions 
administered  by  Pedohaptist  ministers  are  good 
amd  laivful  valid  haptism  according  to  tlie. 
Scrijytiires,  TREi^  Baptist  Churches,  a.sswc/i, 
hate  no  authority  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,  and  ought  to  have  no  existence. 
TREY  ABE  VILE  USURPEBS  OF  AU- 
THORITY WHICH  CHRIST  NEVER 
GAVE  THEM.  They  have  tak^en  away  from 
their  own  memibers  the  li])erty  Vvdiich  they  had 
in  Christ.  They  have  deceived  themselves  and 
endeavored  to  impose  upon  the  world  by  claim- 
ing to  be  the  true  and  Scriptural  Churches  of 
Jesus  Christ,  when  they  were  something  very 
different.  These  are  very  serious  charges. 
One  should  not  make  them,  unless  he  is  very 
sure  that  he  can  make  them  good.  But,  we 
are  willing  to  take  the  responsibility;  we  have 
carefully  counted  the  cost;  we  have  earnestly 
and  consistently  explored  all  the  ground;  we 
have  weighed  well  the  facts  and  arguments, 
one  by  one,  and  we  have  deliberately  come  to 
the  conclusion,  that  the  Baptist  who  yields  this 
one  point,  may  by  logical  necessity  be  driven 
to  yield  all.     Let  every  Baptist   ponder   well 


CONCLUSION.  197 

the  arguraciit  wliich  we  are  now  about  to  pre- 
sent, and  if  it  does  not  make  this  proposition 
p^lain,  let  him. show  where  it  iails.  If  it  does 
m-ike  it  ])lain.  let  him  decide  whether  he  will 
abiindon  the  cherished  principles  of  the  denom- 
ination to  which  he  belongs — the  very  exist- 
ence of  Baptist  Churches  Jis  such — for  the 
sake  of  recognizing  as  valid  baptism  an  unau- 
thorized immersion.     Here  is  the 

ARGUMEKT.   NUMBER  THEEE. 

The  administration  of  baptism  is  not  a  per- 
sonal, but  an  offlcial  act.  It  is  so  regarded  by 
all  Baptist  Churches.  It  is  an  act  which  the 
individual  performs  not  as  a  man  but  as  a  miii- 
isttr,  as  the  servant  of  the  Church.  The 
Church  claims  and  exercises  the  right  to  deter- 
mine who  shall  be  baptized  and  who  shall  bap- 
tize them.  Some  thiidv  that  the  Church  must 
decide  In  evei^y  jjarticular  case  as  it  presents 
itself,  by  application  for  baptism;  and  some 
think,  that  when  she  confers  ordination  upon 
one  as  an  elder  or  evangelist,  she  therein  in- 
vests him  with  the  right  to  baptize,  and  w^hen 
she  caunot  be  conveniently  consulted  to  deter- 
mine u])on  the  propriety  of  baptizing  any  par- 
ticular applisant.  Bi'it  in  any  case,  the  author- 
ity is  deriv^ed  from  the  Church  to  the  adniinis- 
trat«)r.  The  fict,  that  the  Church  gives  it, 
fehows  that  she  claims  to  have  authority  to  give 


198  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIO^^S. 

it.  Tlie  fact  that  slie  gives  it  to  some  and  not 
to  all,  shows  that  she  claims  the  right  to  deny 
it;  and  does  deny  it,  even  to  most  of  her  own 
members. 

Now  the  Churches  are  either  right  in  this,  or 
they  are  wrong.  They  either  have  this  author- 
ity or  they  have  not.  If  they  have  it,  it  must 
have  been  conferred  by  Christ,  the  Head  and 
King.  The  Church  is  His  executive,  and  acts 
by  His  authority  and  in  His  name.  If  HE  did 
not  confer  on  her  the  authority  to  a^^point  the 
administrators  of  baj)tism,  she  has  certainly 
usurped  it  ;  she  has  come  between  Christ  and 
the  convert  who  desires  baptism.  Those  who 
contend  for  the  validity  of  these  immersions  do 
it  on  the  ground  that  the  administrator  is  not 
designated  by  Christ  or  his  authority,  see 
Wayland  (p.  17.)  "  The  only  command  is,  to 
be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Grhost.''  "This  is  the  whole 
of  the  command,  there  is  no  direction  given  be- 
yond, nor  have  we  a  right  to  make  any!'  To 
the  question,  whether  baptism  administered  by 
a  Pedobaptist,  &c.,  is  a  fuliiUment  of  tlie  com- 
mission, Eld.  Waller,  (page  46,)  answers  "that 
the  baptism  is  ^strictly  in  accordance  with  the 
commission  unless  it  prescribes  the  administra- 
tor^ as  absolutely  as  it  does  the  mode  and  tlie 
subject."  And  Elder  Johnson,  (p.  97,)  says, 
"After  all,  the  essence  of  true  spiritual  Gospel 
baptism  consists  in  the  immersion  in  water  of  a 


CONCLUSION.  199 

spiritual  believer  upon  a  profession  of  faith  in 
Christ  hy  ivhomsoever  the  ordinance  maybe  ad- 
ministered.'*' Now  what  I  say  is  this,  if  Christ 
has  not  designated  the  administrator,  or  given 
authority  to  the  Churches  to  do  it,  then  Bap- 
tist Churches  are  vile  usurpers  of  this  authori- 
ty to  the  extent  they  have  been  accustomed  to 
exercise  it.  They  have  no  more  right  to  give  or 
deny  the  right  to  administer  baptism,  than 
they  have  to  make  a  pope.  If  Christ  said  to 
the  convert  "  Be  Baptized,''  and  made  no  pro- 
vision for  the  baptizer,  tlien  the  new  convert 
must  choose  a  baptizer  for  himself.  Then,  as 
we  showed,  page  35,  every  man,  and  every  wo- 
man, and  every  child,  who  has  the  physical 
strength  to  put  another  in  the  water  and  take 
him  out  again  is  an  authorized  administrator  of 
baptism.  And  since  Grod  has  authorized  every 
convert  to  choose  his  own  administrator,  by 
what  authority  can  any  Baptist  Church  claim 
the  right  to  say  who  may  or  who  may  not  bap- 
tize ?  How  dare  she  come  between  her , member  s 
and  their  duties  or  their  privileges,  forbidding 
brothers  to  baptize  their  sisters,  and  husbands 
their  wives,  and  each  and  every  one,  to  adminis- 
ter Christ's  ordinance  to  all  who  may  desire 
his  services  !  How  dare  slie  come  between  the 
convert  and  his  duty  by  saying  to  him,  you  have 
indeed  been  ordered  by  the  Savior  to  submit  to 
baptism,  but  before  you  do  so,  you  must  come 
to  us  and  proless  your  mltii,  and  be  baptized  by 


200  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

one  wliom  we  may  appoint  !  Who  does  not 
see  that  on  the  ground  assumed  by  the 
defenders  of  the  valiuily  of  these  immei^ions, 
that  Ba[itist  Churches  are  vile  usm^pers  of  au^ 
tlioritij  which  Ghirst  never  conferred  U))()n  them. 
S)  ffir  from  beinj^  the  executors  0/  HIS  laios^ 
they  d^vQrivalsViivi  rebels,  set tinpj  up  their  own 
authority  above  their  Masters.  Brethren,  let  us 
not  continue  thus  to  sin  against  Ged.  Let  ua 
at  once  repent  and  go  bacj?:  to  the  simrJicity  of 
the  Gospel.  Let  us  nppoint  no  mure  adminis- 
trators of  baptism!  Let  us  require  no  m.re 
professions  of  faith  to  be  made  to  the  Church. 
Let  us  acknowled;^'e  our  fault!  Let  us  say  to 
the  other  denominations  and  to  the  woild,  that 
we,  as  Baptists,  lune  been  laboring  from 
the  time  of  the  Ap  >s ties  under  a-most  grievous 
error.  We  have  ahvays  thou<;ht  that  Christ 
gave  the  authority  to  confer  his  ordinance  of 
baptism  upon  the  Churches,  and  those  whom 
the  Churches  miglit  appoint.  Our  practice  haa 
always  been  founded  on  this  belief.  But  now 
we  find  this  wasasad  mistake;  Doctors  of  Divini- 
ty, after  eighteen  hundred  years  of  cnrel'ul  stu- 
dy have  discovered,  that  the  adrninistiator  is 
not  r>rovidedfor  at  all.  No  one  wms  desi^c^nated 
by  Christ,  nor  Wc^s  the  Church  authoriz(  d  to 
designate  any.  ''  Tlie  whole  conniunul  'is,  be 
baptized.  There  is  no  direct  ions  given  beyond, 
cind  loe  hove  no  right  to  make  any."  We  are 
sorry  we  had  not   made  this   discovery  at  au 


CONCLUSION.  201 

earlier  day.  It  would  have  saved  tlie  lives 
of  many  thousands  of  our  martyred  brethren. 
But  as  we  love  the  truth  and  wish  to  be  con- 
sistent with  ourselves,  we  now  proclaim  to  all 
the  world  that  we  no  longer  claim  the  usurped 
authority  we  have  so  long  been  accustomed  to 
exercise,  and  we  hereby  inform  all  members  of 
Baptist  Churches  that  each  and  every  one  of 
them  has  the  same  right  and  authority  to  ad- 
minister baptism  which  we  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  confer  upon  our  ministers  ;  and  we 
further  notify  all  who  may  hereafter  be  con- 
verted to  Christ  that  it  is  just  as  laivfiil^  ox- 
cording  to  the  Scriptures  J  for  them  to  apply  for 
and  receive  baptism  from  those  who  are  not 
Church  members  at  all,  as  it  is  to  seek  it  of  a 
Baptist  Church  and  receive  it  of  a  Baptist  min- 
ister :  for  it  has  now  been  discovered  by  learned 
doctors  that,  ^^  after  all,  the  essence  of  true" 
Christian  "  baptism  consists  in  the  immersion  in 
luater  of  a  true  believer  upon  profession  of  his 
faith  by  lohomsoever  the  ordinance  may  be  ad- 
ministered." 

liCt  Churches  which  receive  these  immersions 
as  true  and  valid  Scriptural  baptism  do  this 
and  they  will  be  consistent  with  themselves. 

AIlGUMENT    NUMBER    FOUR.        CONSISTENCY — ■ 
CONTINUED. 

But,  some  Church  may  say,  We  receive  these 
immersions  as  baptism,  but  not  upon  this  ground. 


202  PSDOBAPTIST  IMMEESIO^S. 

We  do  not  "believe  -(liat  Clirist  made  no  pro- 
vision for  the  administrator.  We  do  not  be- 
lieve that  every  man,  saint  or  sinner,  professor 
or  non-prufessor,  minister  or  layman,  in  the 
CI  lurch  or  out,  is  equally  autliorized  hy  Christ 
to  administer  His  baptism.  Nor  do  we  believe 
that  baptism  administered  luithout  authority 
from  liim  is  His  baptism,  or  to  be  received  as 
,  suuh  bv  «ny  of  His  Churches.  But  we  believe 
these  Pedobaptist  ministers  are  true  mifiislcru 
of  Jesus  Christ,  though  lab<n'irjg  under  some 
very  important  errors,  and  that  as  lus  rtiiius- 
ters  they  are  duly  authorized  and  commissioned 
to  administer  his  ordinances. 

Very  good.  This  places  the  matter  upon 
quite  a  different  ground.  It  is  not  nf>w  con- 
tended that  every  moM  has  authority  to  baj/tize, 
but  only  true  and  actual  ministers  of  Jesus 
Christ.  But  now  let  us  see  if  this  Church  is 
any  less  inconsistent  than  the  others.  Must 
she  not,  like  the  others,  re])udiate  and  deny  tho 
faith  and  practice  of  the  Baptist  denominafion 
in  all  ages  and  places  ?  Let  us  see.  Hjjs  it 
not  ever  been,  and  is  it  not  now  the  j^ractice  of 
the  Ba[)tists,  vvlien  one  of  these  administrators 
is  convinced  of  his  errors  and  receives  the  true 
baptism  from  a  Baptist  Church,  to  ordain  him 
to  the  ministry  before  we  recognize  him  as  a 
true  niinister,  authorized  to  administer  the  or- 
dinances? We  think  it  is.  But  surely  we 
have  been  very  inconsistent  in  this  thing.     If 


CONCLUSION.  203 

he  was  a  rainister,  and  as  a  minister,  ^vas  really 
authorized  to  administer  Christ's  ordiiianceH, 
upon  what  ground  would  any  Baptist  Church 
have  dared  to  take  away  his  authority,  or  treat 
hiui  as  though  it  had  never  heen  given  ?  A 
man  is  sometimes  deposed  from  the  ministry 
J  or  doing  ivrovg,  hut  what  Church  would  dare 
depose  this  man  for  doing  right?  Yesterday, 
while  he  was  living  in  open  disohedicnce  to  the 
Lord's  command,  he  torts  a  good  and  lawjul 
minister,  with  full  authority  to  conft-r  the  ordi- 
naijce  which  he  vfould  not  receive.  To-df^y.  he 
has  oheyed  and  heen  haptized,  and  hy  that  act 
has  forfeited  his  office.  We  have  deposed  Inm 
from  the  mini&tr?/,  notjor  any  sin,  hut  for  obey- 
ing the  Lord.  We  treat  him  just  as  though  he 
never  had  heen  a  minister.  We  ordain  him 
just  as  we  would  a  man  who  never  had  darined 
to  be  a  minister.  While  he  was  living  in  open 
reheUi<m  against  the  requirements  of  the  com- 
missinn  from  which  he  claimed  authority  to 
preach  and  to  baptize,  Ave  reco<:nized  him  as  a 
■minister,  and  received  his  official  acts  as  valid 
and  hiwilil.  But  now  he  has  obeyed  the  lavr, 
and  united,  as  was  his  duty,  with  the  visible 
Kingdom  of  Christ,  and  we  will  not  recognize 
him  as  having  any  authority  at  ail  untd  we 
have  conferred  it  hy  a  Scriptural  ordination. 
Is  this  a  specimen  of  Baptist  consistency  ?  Is 
this  the  way  to  convince  the  world  that  we  be- 
lieve what  we  profess  ? 


204  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 


ARGUMENT    NUMBER    FIVE. 

But  here,  again,  is  another  inconsistency.  We 
recognize  these  unbaptized  administrators  as 
ministers,  and  liavimj  authority  to  administer 
the  ordinances  of  the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ. 
We  must  do  this,  or  else  reject  their  adminis- 
trations as  unauthorized,  that  is,  without  autho- 
rity. But  we  do  not  regard  any  hnptized  person, 
any  member  of  a  Ba|>tist  Church,  as  having 
such  authority,  unless  it  lias  heen  con/erred  ojb 
Mm  by  the  Church.  Now  one  of  two  things 
must  be  true.  Either  there  is  something  in 
being  Vi^-haptizcd  which  gives  a  man  peculiar 
rights  and  authority  in  the  Kingdom  of  Christ, 
or  these  men  have  received  authority  from  some 
source  as  truly  and  as  fully  authorized  to  con- 
fer it  as  a  Ba])tist  Church.  If  nothing  bat  a 
Baptist  Church  can  give  this  authority  to  a 
haptized  man,  to  a  Baptist  Church  member,  it 
must  require  authority  cqical  at  least  to  that  of 
such  a  Church  to  confer  it  on  the  un-h^iiiUzed. 
This  is  self-evident.  Some  of  these  men  have 
derived  their  authority  as  ministers  from  Epis- 
copal or  Methodist  Bishops,  and  it  follows  that 
Episcop^al  and  Metliodist  Bishops  have  authority 
in  Christ's  Kingdom  to  appoint  the  administra- 
tors of  bai)tism,  equal  or  superior  to  that  of  any 
Baptist  Church.  The  Churches  can  only  appoint 
a  baptized  Church  member,  but  these  lords  over 


CONCLUSION.  205 

Gud's  heritage  are  aclvDOwledged  by  Baptists  to 
have  the  authority  to  appoint  the  unbaptized, 
and  the  scoffers  at  baptism,  and  Baptist 
Churches  must  recognize  their  official  acts  as  of 
equal  validity  with  those  performed  by  a 
Baptist  minister.  And  as  we  recognize  these 
BISHOPS  as  having  power  in  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  to  appoint  the  administrators  of  baptism. 
So  we  must  recognize  the  power  that  makes  the 
bisltopsas  having  the  right  to  confer  on  them  this 
authority,  to  appoint  baptizers  for  Christ.  The 
General  Conference,  therefore,  takes  rank  in 
tJie  visible  kingdom  of  Christ,  not  only  er|ual 
to,  but  far  above  a  Baptist  Church. — This,  can 
only  appoint,  or  ordain,  a  baptized  Church 
member  to  administer  Christ's  ordinance  :  but 
the  conference  can  appoint  and  authorize  men 
not  merely  to  baptize,  biU  to  create  baptizers 
among  the  unbaptized.  But  not  to  dwell 
upon  this  point,  we  will  only  ask  of  every  Bap- 
tist Church  to  consider,  whether  it  is  prepared 
to  recognize  the  authority  of  Episco])al  and 
Methodist  bishops,  Lutheran  synods  or  Presby- 
terian councils  or  presbyteries,  in  api)ointing 
men  to  administer  the  ordinances  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  as  equal  to  or  above  her  oion.  If  she 
does  not  thus  recognize  it,  she  cannot  receive 
these  baptisms  on  the  ground  that  they  were 
conferred  by  ministers  duly  authorized,  since 
these  ministers  received  all  their  authority  from 
these  sources.  Admit  their  official  acts  are 
18 


206  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

valid^  and  tliey  will  drive  us  by  logical  necessi- 
ty to  admit  that  they  have  mttliority  from 
Glivist  to  jyerform  tliem^  and  as  the  only  author- 
ity they  claim  comes  through  these  channels, 
they  drive  us  to  admit  that  they  are  true 
Churches  and  true  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ, 
bishops,  conference,  and  all. 

ARGUMENT     NUMBER    SIX. 

Once  more.  Baptist  Churches  have  ever  been 
accustomed  to  reject  the  official  acts  of  even 
baptized  men  whom  they  have  themselves  or- 
dained to  the  ministry,  so  soon  as  they  disco- 
ver that  they  are  unsound  in  faith  or  practice. 
If  therefore,  these  Pedobaptist  immersers  were 
members  of  Baptist  Churches,  and  taught  and 
practiced  infant  baptism  as  they  are  now  accus- 
tomed to  do,  they  would  be  deposed  from  the 
ministry  and  excluded  from  the  Cburch,  just  as 
soon  as  the  proper  steps  could  be  taken  to  ac- 
complish the  object.  Such  has  been  the  uniform 
practice  of  our  Churches.  But  it  must  now  be 
evident  that  it  is  very  wrong,  for  so  far  from  re- 
jecting the  official  acts  of  unbaptized  men  who 
teach  and  practice  such  things,  we  receive  them 
as  Scriptural  and  valid  ;  we  recognize  them  as 
lawfully  appointed  administrators  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  God's  House.  Surely  there  is  some- 
thing in  not  being  baptized  which  recommends 
a  man  with  great  power  to  the  Baptist  heart. 


CONCLUSION.  207 

If  a  hajjtizcd  man  should,  as  a  Baptist  minister, 
hut  sprinkle  a  single  infant  in  the  name  of 
Christ  to  make  it  a  memher  of  His  kingdom, 
liis  brethren  would  disown  him,  and  so  far  from 
recognizing  hhn  as  a  valid  a-nd  lawful  admin- 
strator  of  Christ's  baptism,  they  would  at  once 
depose  him  from  all  official  station,  and  even 
exclude  him  from  the  communion  and  fellow- 
ship of  the  Churches.  But  an  vi^hajjtked  man 
may  do  this  hahitually  and  even  onoch  at  the 
immersion  which  he  occasionally  and  with  re- 
luctance confers  on  a  believer,  and  yet  these 
same  Baptist  Churches  which  were  so  hard  upon 
their  brother  will  cordially  receive  this  man's 
work  and  thus  recognize  him  as  having  author- 
ity to  perform  it.  Is  not  this  consistency  in- 
deed ! 

ARGUMENT    NUMBER  SEVEN. 

But  here  is  another  inconsistency.  Let  those 
Baptist  Churches  which  admit  these  immersions 
as  lawful  and  valid  baptisms,  consider  what 
they  will  do  with  it.  Every  Baptist  Church  is 
accustomed,  when  any  one  applies  to  her  for 
admission  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ'  by  bap- 
tism, to  make  a  careful  examination  into  the 
nature  of  his  faith,  his  religious  experience  and 
the  like,  in  order  that  she  may  determine  whe- 
ther he  is  a  lit  subject  for  the  kingdom  or  not. 
If  she  regards  him  as  worthy  and  well  qualified 


208  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMEESIOKS. 

she  directs  him  to  be  baptized  ;  if  not,  she  re- 
jects his  application.  Now,  that  fact,  that  she 
does  this  thing  as  a  Gliurcli  of  Christ,  shows 
that  Baptists  suppose  that  the  Church  is  au- 
thorized by  Christ  to  do  it.  She  either  is,  or  she 
is  not.  If  not,  she  is  a  usurper  of  authority  in 
the  kingdom  of  Christ.  She  takes  it  on  herself 
to  decide  who  may  and  who  may  not  become 
its  visible  and  actual  members,  when  Christ 
gave  her  no  such  right  or  power.  If,  however, 
she  is  authorized,  raid  does  this  in  Christ's  name 
upon  His  commandment  and  by  His  commis- 
sion, then  every  times  he  admits  as  valid,  that  is, 
lawful  and  Scriptural  a  baptism  which  she 
did  not  authorize,  she  admits  that  those  who 
did  authorize  it  had  equal  authority  from  Christ 
to  decide  this  question,  as  she  has  herself,  if 
this  was  done  by  a  sister  Baptist  Church,  she 
by  receiving  the  act  recognizes  her  sister  as 
equally  with  herself  empowered  to  determine 
who  shall  be  baptized  ;  and  it  is  precisely  upon 
this  ground  that  she  is  accustomed  to  receive 
the  baptism  thus  conferred,  as  though  it  had 
been  conferred  by  herself.  But  now  it  is  self- 
evident  that,  upon  the  same  principle,  when  she 
receives  as  Scriptural  and  lawful  valid  baptism 
an  immersion  conferred  by  the  authority  of  a 
Freshyterian  session,  she  recognizes  that  session 
as  equally  with  herself,  empowered  by  Christ  to 
determine  who  ought  to  be  baptized.  When 
she  receives  one  conferred  upon  the  recommend- 


CONCLUSION.  209 

ation  of  a  Metliodist  class  leader,  she  acknow- 
ledges him  as  having  from  Christ  equal  author- 
ity with  herself  or  a  sister  Baptist  Church,  to 
decide  this  question.  When  she  receives  one 
conferred  upon  his  own  responsibility  by  an 
Episcopal  lyviesty  she  recognizes  Ziz'm  as  having 
from  Christ  equal  authority  with  herself  to  de- 
termine who  may  and  who  may  not  be  baptized 
into  the  visible  kingdom  of  her  Lord.  Receiv- 
ing him  as  baptized,  she  recognizes  him  as 
being  lawfully  within  the  kingdom,  and 
of  course,  as  having  been  lawfully  introduced. 
There  is  no  logical  possibility  of  evading  this 
conclusion.  If  Baptists  think  that  this  is  true, 
if  they  believe  that  Christ  lias  thus  divided  the 
authority  equally  among  all  who  claim  the 
rio-ht  to  exercise  it,  let  them  be  consistent  with 
themselves.  Let  them  no  longer  set  uj)  any 
claims  to  be  tlie  Churches  of  Christ;  all  others  are 
as  much  entitled  to  the  name  and  the  authori- 
ty as  they  are.  Let  them  no  longer  complain 
of  the  "  session"'  as  a  power  unappointed  and 
unauthorized  in  the  Word.  Let  them  no  long- 
er speak  of  the  class  leader  and  the  priest  as 
claiming  and  exercising  authority  not  granted 
to  them  in  the  Scriptures.  They  lay  no  claim 
to  any  higher  or  more  important  power  than  the 
power  to  determine  who  may  and  who  may  not 
become  members  of  Christ's  visible  kingdom 
upon  the  earth.  And  this  is  granted  them. 
They  hold  the   keys    of  the   kingdom.     Why 


210  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

contend  witli  them  about  trifles,  when  we  have 
granted  the  o^reat  and  all  controlling^  essen- 
tial  of  Church  dominion.  Let  us  come  out 
like  candid  men  and  own  our  faults.  Let  us 
proclaim  to  all  the  world,  that  we  have  been  for 
these  eighteen  hundred  years  deceived  in  regard 
to  the  teachings  of  the  Word  of  God  upon  this 
point.  Let  us  acknowledge  that  we  have  been 
usurpers  in  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord,  claiming 
to  our  Churches  the  right  to  decide  who 
were  and  who  were  not  lit  subjects  for  ad- 
mission, when  in  fact,  we  had  no  more  authori- 
ty in  the  case  than  a  Methodist  class  leader  or 
a  Presbyterian  session,  or  a  Popish  priest,  and 
these  we  have  been  accustomed  to  believe  and 
teach  had  none  at  all.  Let  every  Church  that  re- 
ceives as  Scriptural  and  valid  one  of  these  immer- 
sions do  this,  and  she  will  be  thus  far  consis- 
tent. 

ARGUMENT    NUMBER    EIGHT. 

But  there  is  still  another  inconsistency.  It 
is  this.  After  a  Baptist  Church  has  determin- 
ed that  any  applicant  for  baptism  is  a  fit  and 
proper  subject  for  the  kingdom  and  ought  to  be 
baptized  ;  if  a  Pedobaptist  minister  or  any 
other  unbaptized  man  were  prq^iosed  to  her  as 
a  suitable  person  to  administer  the  ordinance 
for  her,  she  would  reject  the  proposal  with 
stern  disdain.     She  would  not  so  much  as  think 


COKCLUSIOX.  211 

of  such  a  thing  as  permitting  him  to  baptize 
for  the  purpose  of  admitting  hy  her  autlioritu 
into  the  Idngdom  one  whom  she  had  herseli 
just  counted  worthy  of  admission.  Tliat  she 
would  regard  as  an  outrage  upon  all  Baptist 
faith  and  practice.  Such  a  thing  has  not  been 
known.  But  yet  when  the  person  has  been 
designated  to  baptism  without  her  authority, 
by  a  classleader,  session,  priest,  bishop,  or  some- 
body whom  she  denies  to  have  any  authority 
whatever,  and  when  the  baptism  is  to  be  con- 
ferred, not  to  introduce  him  into  a  Baptist 
Church,  but  into  a  body  which  she  condemns  af? 
being  not  a  Church,  and  whose  members,  how- 
ever good  and  pious  they  may  be,  she  cannot 
recognize  as  members  of  Christ's  visible  king- 
dom at  all;  then,  strange  to  tell,  she  sees  nothing 
illegal — nothing  unscriptural — nothing  more 
than  a  pardonable  irregularity  !  Then  the  ad- 
ministrator is  amply  authorized,  and  the  tran- 
saction is  lawfid  and  valid  !  !  Surely  Baptists 
are  a  wonderful  people  !  1  ! 

OKCE  MORE. 

The  above  eight  arguments,  from  consid- 
erations of  consistency,  apply  equally  to  those 
who  are  called  Close  Communion,  and  those  who 
are  called  Open  Communion  Baptists.  Most 
of  the  denomination  in  our  country  are,  how- 
ever, strict  communionists.     I  propose  now  to 


212  PEnOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

make  an  argument  wliicli  will  show  that  those 
who  admit  these  immersions  as  valid  baptisms, 
must  of  logical  necessity  also  admit  the  utter 
fallacy  of  any  plea  upon  which  we  have  been 
accustomed  to  rest  the  defence  of  our  practice, 
in  regard  to  the  observance  of  the  Supper. 

ARGUMENT    NUMBER    NINE. 

Y/hat  are  the  grounds  on  which  we  refuse  to 
commune  with  Pedobaptist  and  Campbellite 
Churches  at  their  Table,  and  why  is  it  that  we 
cannot  invite  them  to  commune  at  ours  ? 
Whatever  answers  we  may  give  to  these  ques- 
tions may  be-  resolved  into  this  ojie, 
viz. :  We  do  not  regard  tJiem  as  true  and  Scrip- 
tural Churches  of  Jesus  Christ.  Either  because 
they  have  not  been  baptized,  or  because  they 
hold  and  teach,  or  practice,  what  we  r<»gard  as 
contrary  to  the  requirements  of  the  Gospel. 
We  need  not  go  into  the  particulars.  If  they 
are  unbaptized,  we  say  they  cannot  be  true 
Churches,  for  HIS  Churches  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  were  composed  of  baptized  believers. 

If  they  yield  submission  to  the  rule  of  men 
in  matters  of  religion  or  Church  polity,  they  are 
not  HIS  Churches,  for  these,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  have  none  above  themselves  but 
only  Christ,  their  Head  and  King. 

If  they  teach,  or  liold,  or  practice,  what  is  es- 
sentially at  variance  witli  the  great  fundamental 


CONCLUSION.  213 

doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  they  are  not  HIS 
Churches,  for  they  rejoice  in  the  truth.  If 
not  His  Churches,  we,  as  His  people,  can  have 
Avith  them  no  Church  fellowship.  We  can 
give  them  no  official  countenance.  We  thus 
protest  against  their  perversion  of  the  Gospel. 
It  is  not  merely  that  they  have  not  been  bap- 
tized, and  we  regard  baptism  as  a  prerequisite 
to  communion.  It  is  because  they  are  not 
Gospel  Churches,  not  Scriptural  Church  mem- 
bers. We  would  no  more  invite  a  body  of  bap- 
tized persons  who  believed  and  practiced  as 
they  do,  than  we  would  them.  We  would  at 
once  refuse  to  commune  with  any  of  our  own 
brethren,  who  should  fall  into  the  same  errors. 
W^e  would  at  once  disown  a  Baptist  Church 
which  should  thus  deny  the  faith.  We  have 
always  been  accustomed  thus  to  do.  It  is  thus 
we  fulfill  the  solemn  injunction  of  the  Apostle, 
^'  Now  we  command  you  brethren  in  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw 
yourself  from  every  brother  that  walketh  disor- 
derly and  not  after  the  tradition  which  he  re- 
ceived from  us,"  2  Thess.  iii.  6.  Now,  if  these 
are  true  Churches  of  Christ,  they  have  equal  au- 
thority in  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  with  any  other 
of  His  Churches.  If  they  are  true  Churches, 
their  members  are  as  much  entitled  to  all 
Church  privileges  as  ours  are.  If  they  are  true 
Churches,  their  ordinances  stand  upon  the  same 
ground  with  our  own.     We  have  no  good  reason 


214  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

to  reject  either  tlieir  members  or  their  ordi- 
nances. We  must  receive  them  both.  If  they  are 
not  true  Churches^  we  cannot  in  our  Church  ca- 
]jacity  recognize   either  the  one  or  the  other. 

Here,  then,  is  the  basis  of  our  action  in  regard 
to  this  question  of  our  communion.  Eegarding 
it  as  a  Church  ordinance,  something  done  and. 
observed  in  our  official  capacity  as  a  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ,  we  are  compelled  to  keep  it  separ- 
ate from  those  who  are  not  true  Church  mem- 
bers. 

But  now,  mark  this  :  When,  as  a  Church, 
loe  recognize,  as  valid  and  Scriptural,  a  baj^tism 
conferred  by  the  authority  of  any  one  of  these 
organizations  ivhich  claimto  be  his  Churches,  tue 
do  by  that  act  recognize  that  body  as  a  true 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  thus  undermine 
and  destroy  the  very  foundations  upon  which 
we  rest  our  arguments  foi  strict  communion,  the 
only  foundation  upon  which  we  can  build  a  re- 
liable and  consistent  argument.  To  say  that 
we  do  not  so  recognize  it,  is  to  say  that  we  can 
recognize  as  Scriptural  and  valid  an  official  act, 
wliile  we  deny  that  those  who  performed  it  as 
such  had  any  official  authority  to  perform  it ;  or 
else  that  those  who  are  not  Churches  of  Jesus 
Christ  have  the  same  official  authority  to  confer 
Plis  ordinances,  as  those  that  are  His  true  law- 
ful Cliurches  according  to  the  Scriptures,  which 
would  be  equal  to  saying  that  Christ  gave  no 
authority  to  His  Churches  to  determine  who 


CONCLUSION.  215 

sliould  receive  or  who  should  administer  His  ordi- 
nances, and  consequently,  every  Baptist  Church 
that  claims  and  exercises  such  authority  in  His 
name  and  as  His  Church,  is  a  usurper  and  de- 
ceiver. Or,  to  reverse  the  process  of  the  argument, 
we  must  admit  that  every  Ba2:>tist  Church  is  a 
usurper  and  deceiver  :  or  else  that  it  really  has 
been  invested  by  Christ  with  the  authority 
which  it  claims  and  exercises  when  it  decides 
who  may  be  baptized,  and  who  may  be 
the  administrators  of  baptism.  If  it  have 
been  thus  invested  as  a  ChurcJi,  and  none 
but  true  Churches  are  thus  invested,  then 
those  other  organizations,  or  those  other 
individuals,  who  claim  and  exercise  the  right  to 
determine  who  may  be  baptized,  and  who  may 
administer  baptism,  are  usurpers  and  deceivers. 
They  do  not  possess  the  authority  which  they 
claim  and  exercise.  Christ  never  conferred  it 
on  them.  Every  exercise  of  this  power  is  an  act 
of  rebellion  against  Christ,  an  act  of  usurped, 
autliority  in  His  kingdom  and  of  deception  to-^ 
wards  the  world.  The  Church  that  recognizes- 
the  act,  recognizes  this  deception  as  the  truth, 
this  usurped  authority  as  legal,  and  this  rebel- 
lion as  obedience. 

Brethren,  let  us  be  consistent  with  ourselves. 
Let  us  not  stultify  and  contradict  our  own 
reasonings.  Let  us  not  fear  to  carry  out  our 
positions  to  their  legitimate  and  logical  con- 
sequences.     If  we    dare  not    do  this,    let  us- 


216  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

abandon  the  positions.  Truth  will  always  bear 
this  trial.  If  we  are  right,  let  us  be  all  right  ;  if 
we  are  wrong,  let  us  give  up  all  and  begin 
anew.  If  we  receive  the  official  acts  of  these 
Pedobaptist  sessions,  class  leaders,  bishops  and 
priests,  as  Scriptural  and  valid,  let  us  no  longer 
befool  ourselves  and  the  world,  by  pretending 
that  they  have  no  authority  from  Christ  to  per- 
form them.  If  they  have  the  authority,  then 
upon  our  own  cherished  principles,  they  are 
true  Churches  and  true  ministers,  lawfully  or- 
ganized and  ordained,  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  not  fellowship  and  commune 
with  them  as  such. 


NUMBER  TEN. 

While  it  is  freely  admitted  that  every  par- 
ticular Church  has  full  authority  to  manage  its 
own  affairs,  and  is  responsible  to  Christ  alone 
for  the  way  in  which  she  performs  her  part  as 
the  executive  of  His  kingdom,  yet  it  must  also 
be  conceded,  that  it  is  at  least  very  desirable 
that  no  one  Church  shall  so  far  depart  ftom 
what  her  sister  Churches  are  known  to  regard  as 
right,  as  to  cause  any  feelings  of  disapproba- 
tion of  her  course  in  their  minds.  The  Baptist 
family  should  be  one.  This  should  especially 
be  true  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  mem- 
bership.    It   is   surely  a   sad  thing   for  some 


CONCLUSION.  217 

Churches  to  receive  and  regard  as  Church 
members,  persons  whom  other  Churches 
do  not  and  cannot  regard  as  such,  be- 
cause, in  their  opinion,  they  have  not  been 
baptized  ;  and  all  Baptists  hold  that  bapiism 
is  an  essential  prerequisite  to  Church  mem- 
bership. Now  every  time  that  any  Church  re- 
ceives a  member  upon  a  Pedobaptist,  Camp- 
bellite,  or  any  other  unauthorized  immersion, 
she  introduces  into  the  Baptist  family  a  person 
whom  very  many  of  the  Churches,  and  probably 
a  number  of  her  own  members,  do  not  regard  as 
having  been  baptized  any  more  than  if  he  had 
been  sprinkled  in  his  infancy  for  baptism. 
They  are  obliged  to  fellowship  this  individual 
or  raise  a  disturbance.  Now  if  this  were  neces- 
sari/  and  unavoidable^  if  the  opposite  course 
involved  any  violation  of  Church  duty,  it  might 
be  claimed  that  it  must  be  endured.  But  since 
the  most  learned  and  earnest  advocates  of  these 
immersions  presents  no  Scripture  that  requires 
the  Church  to  receive  them.  Since  ihey  con- 
tend for  them  rather  as  something  pardonable 
and  admissible,  than  something  needful  and  es- 
sential, since  Ekler  Fuller,  probably  the  most 
learned  and  eloquent  of  them  all,  could  see  good 
reasons  why  he  should  not  ask  the  Churches  to 
receive  HIM  upon  such  an  immersion,  however 
ready  he  may  be  to  insist  upon  their  receiving 
others — in  short,  since  it  is  no  sin  to  insist 
upon  their  being  baptized  in  such  a  way  and 
19 


218  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

by  such  authority,  that  no  one  can  object  to  the 
vaUclity  of  the  administration,  we  contend  that 
it  ought  always  to  be  done  out  of  regard  to  the 
consciences  of  those  who  would  be  aggrieved 
and  offended  at  a  different  course. . 

"If  meat  make  my  brother  to  offend, 
I  will  eat  no  meat  while  the  world  stands,  lest 
I  make  my  brother  to  offend/'  Here  is  the 
great  principle  of  Christian  practice.  In 
"things  indifferent  yield  everything  for  peace.  To 
those  on  one  side  of  this  question,  this  is  a  mat- 
ter of  indifference — that  is,  they  do  not  regard 
^diat  they  would  call  a  repetition  of  the  bap- 
tism as,  under  such  circumstances,  sinful.  It  is 
only,  they  think,  unnecessary.  It  may  be  dis- 
pensed with,  but  if  performed,  no  harm  is  done. 
\Vhile  on  the  other  hand,  to  dispense  with  it, 
is  looked  upon  as  disobedience  to  Christ,  as  a 
neglect  or  refusal  to  obey  His  command  to  be 
baptized,  as  a  recognition  of  the  official  author- 
ity in  the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ,  of  those 
who  do  not  so  much  as  belong  to  that  kingdom, 
as  the  giving  up  of  all  the  distinctive  peculiari- 
;ties  of  Baptist  Churches.  Scarce  any  Church 
•can  probably  be  found  that  would  be  unani- 
mous in  receiving  such  a  baptism,  and  if  not, 
tlie  minority,  be  it  large  or  small,  will  be  com- 
pelled to  fellowship  a  person  as  a  Church 
member  whom  they  conscientiously  believe  has 
never  been  rightly  baptized  according  to  Christ's 
commandment. 


CONCLUSIOX.  219 

If  it  be  objected  that  to  require  the  baptism 
might  wound  the  conscience  of  the  candidate, 
the  question  will  arise,  to  whose  conscience 
should  a  Church  of  Christ  pay  the  most  regard 
in  matters  of  Church  duty — xhat  of  a  stranger 
not  vet  within  the  kimrdom,  or  that  of  her  own 
established  members  ?  Let  him  wait  until  his 
conscience  has  been  instructed.  And  if  it  can 
never  be  so  taught,  that  it  will  cease  to  regard 
an  ordinance  conferred  without  any  authority 
from  Christ  to  the  administrator  or  those  who 
appointed  him,  as  the  true  ordinance  of  Christ, 
it  may  be  a  question,  whether  he  will  ever  make 
a  valuable  member  of  a  Baptist  Church. 

Bujt  suppose  that  a  Church  should  be  entire- 
ly united  upon  this  subject,  and  the  candidate 
shall  be  admitted.  He  afterwards  desires  mem- 
bership in  another  Church  in  which  they  are 
equally  united  in  the  opinion  that  he  should 
not  have  been  received.  He  presents  his  letter, 
and  asks  for  membership ;  the  brethren  mus?t 
show  apparent  discourtesy  to  the  recommenda- 
tion of  a  sister  Church,  or  else  receive  into  their 
number  one  whom  they  all  v/ith  one  accord  be- 
lieve to  be  an  unbaptized  man.  Why  should 
Baptists  continue  to  create  such  troubles  for 
the  Churches  and  such  difficulties  for  the 
brethren,  when  there  is  confessedly  no  necessity 
for  it  ?  When  all  that  is  contended  for,  may 
be  yielded  without  sin.  When  such  an  advo- 
cate for  it  as  Elder  E.  Fuller,  of  Baltimore,  not 


220  PEDOBAPTIcT  IMMERSIONS. 

only  grants  tliat  it  may  be  done,  but  actually 
did  it  in  liis  own  very  remarkable  and  very  in- 
structive case,  [see  page  66.]  Why  not  do  in 
every  case  as  he  did  in  his  ?  Let  those  who 
consider  the  baptism  as  invalid  correct  it  as  a 
wrong,  and  let  those  who  regard  as  only  irregu- 
lar, correct  as  irregular ;  and  let  us  all  be,  if 
not  of  one  heart  and  one  mind  in  regard  to  the 
reasons  of  our  practice,  yet  all  alike  in  the  prac- 
tice itself.  Are  they  not  disturbers  of  the 
peace  and  unity  of  the  Churches  who  insist 
upon  forcing  upon  us  these  half-made  Baptists. 

THE    ARGUMENT    FROM    THE     HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

Thus  far  we  have  reasoned  the  case  upon 
general  principles  vdiich  we  have  taken  to  be 
seU-evidont,  admitted  by  those  upon  the  other 
side,  or  which  we  have  established  by  conclu- 
sive proof  as  we  went  along.     We  have  seen, 

1st.  That  every  man's  common  sense  would 
teach  him  that  the  same  body  which  is  desig- 
nated by  the  Scriptures  to  receive  the  profession 
of  faith  which  Christ  requires  as  preliminary  to 
baptism  and  judge  of  its  genuineness,  must  be 
authorized  to  determine  who  should  be  baptized, 
and  who  should  baptize  him.  Baptists  hold 
that  this  body  is  a  true  Church  of  Christ  assem- 
bled in  its  Church   capacity,   and  no  one  else. 

2d.  As  baptism  is  the  rite  of  initiation  into 
the  kingdom,  common  sense  would  teach  that  no 


CONCLUSION.  221 

man  can  be  in  the  kingdom  wlio  lias  not  been 
baptized.  And  common  sense  would  further  * 
teach,  that  it  would  be  unnatural  and  unrea- 
sonable, simple  and  foolish,  to  invest  with  the 
most  important  of  all  the  offices  of  the  kingdom, 
(that  of  determining  who  should  be  members  of 
it,)  those  who  are  not  members  themselves,  who, 
while  they  claim  to  love  the  King,  refuse,  to  be 
initiated  according  to  His  commandment. 
Common  sense  would  take  it  for  granted,  in  the 
absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary,  that  the  ofiicers 
of  the  kingdom  must  belong  to  the  kingdom. 
To  authorize  or  administer  baptism  is  an  official 
act.  No  official  act  is  valid,  unless  it  is  author- 
ized by  Him  to  whom  the  authority  belongs. 
The  authority,  in  this  matter,  belongs  to  Christ. 
Christ,  as  King,  has  conferred,  no  official  au- 
thority on  those  who  are  not  in  His  kingdom. 
These  unbaptized  baptizers  are  not  in  it,  and, 
therefore,  cannot  be  authorized,  and  consequent- 
ly their  official  acts  must  be  invalid. 

3d.  We  have  seen  by  a  succession  of  reason- 
ings, in  which  we  invite  the  best  logicians  of  all 
the  advocates  for  the  reception  of  these  immer- 
sions to  show  any  fatal  fallacy  that  the  recogni- 
tion of  these  immersions  as  Scriptural  and  valid 
baptism,  must,  of  logical  necessity,  drive  us  to 
the  conviction  that  Baptist  Churches  claiming 
and  exercising  authority  in  the  kingdom  oT 
Christ  to  decide  who  may  be  baptized  or  who 
shall  be  baptizers,  are  usurpers  and  deceivers, 


222  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

and  ought  to  have  no  existence,  and  that  every 
time  they  recognize  these  immersions  as  valid 
baptism  they  virtually  repudiate  and  deny  all 
the  cherished  principles  and  practices  of  the 
denomination  to  which  we  belong. 

But  after  all,  such  a  question  as  this  cannot 
be  ultimately  decided  upon  such  grounds  as 
these.  The  ultimate  appeal  must  be  to  the 
Word  of  God.  "What  saith  the  Scripture  .? 
How  readest  thou.^"  must  be  the  questions 
earnestly  asked,  and  candidly  answered  be- 
fore we  can  be  ^sure  of  our  standing. 
If  common  sense  would  determine  our 
position,  as  certainly  it  might  and  must  in 
the  absence  of  Scripture  teaching  to  the  contra- 
ry, yet  common  sense  itself,  must  yield  to  the 
Word  of  God,  if  the  two  should  ever  come  in 
opposition.  If  regard  for  Baptist  consistency 
would  determine  it,  consistency  itself  must  yield 
to  the  Word  of  God  if  they  should  come  in  op- 
position. Much  as  I  love  the  Baptist  name, 
proud  as  I  am  of  Baptist  history,  thoroughly  as 
I  am  convinced  that  we  are  right,  yet  if  the 
Word  of  God  can  be  found  to  condemn  our 
faith  and  practice  in  any  one  particular,  I  will 
abandon  that  one  thing.  If  that,  like  the  mat- 
ter under  consideration,  is  one  that  is  so  funda- 
mental, that  to  admit  that  we  are  wrong  in  it, 
Vill  destroy  the  very  foundations  of  our 
Churches  and  tumble  into  utter  ruin  all  the 
frame  work  of  our  organization  ;  though  I  should 


CONCLUSION.  223 

ponder  well  and  study  carefully,  one  by  one 
each  text  and  passage  which  was  thought  to  bear 
the  words  of  condemnation,  yet  once  convinced, 
I  would  clasp  my  Bible  to  my  heart  and  hurry 
away  from  the  dissolving  wreck,  and  as  I  ran, 
would  call  back  to  every  one  who  loved  the 
Lord,  "  Come  out  of  her  my  people,  that  ye  be 
not  partaker  of  her  plagues/' 

To  the  Law,  then,  and  the  Testimony,  we  must 
come  at  last.  And  now  our  inquiry  is,  whether 
we  can  find,  recorded  in  the  Word  of  Grod,  any 
single  text  or  passage  which  will  require,  or 
even  justify  us  in  thus  denying  the  fliith  of  our 
fathers  and  repudiating  the  practice  of  our 
Churches. 

Is  there  a  single  precept  which  requires  a 
man  to  baptize  others  who  w-ill  be  himself  bap- 
tized ?  • 

Is  there  a  single  precept  which  so  authorizes 
him  to  do  it  ? 

Is  there  a  single  precept  which  so  much  as 
loermits  him  to  do  it. 

Is  there  a  single  example  in  which  any  one 
but  John  who  bore  a  special  commission  to  in- 
troduce the  rite  and  who  could  not  be  baptized 
because  there  was  no  one  to  baptize  him.  Is 
there,  besides  his,  a  single  example  of  one  bap- 
tizing in  Christ's  name  who  would  not  receive 
baptism  by  His  authority.  Or,  in  other  words, 
is  there  a  single  example  after  baptism  was 
introduced    as  the   initiatory   rite   of  Christ's 


224  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIOXS. 

visible  kingxlom  of  any  one  who  had  not 
been  baptized  administering  the  rite  to 
others  and  pushing  them  into  the  kingdom 
they  would  themselves  not  enter,  administering 
to  others  by  Christ's  command,  the  rite  they 
would  not  receive  by  His  command.  If  there 
is  one  such  precept,  if  there  is  one  such  exam- 
ple, we  yield  the  point  at  once.  Let  us  not  be 
found  fighting  against  God.  What,  then,  are 
the  Scriptures  upon  which  these  "Doctors" 
and  other  learned  and  eloquent  advocates  of  the 
practice  we  are  opposing  rest  its  claims.  They 
surely  will  not  ask  us  to  receive  a  doctrine,  which, 
if  carried  out,  would  be  thus  fatal,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  the  very  existence  of  our  denomination, 
without  some  Scripture  authority.  They  know, 
or  ought  to  know,  that  Baptists  attach  very 
great  importance  to  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  while 
they  care  comparatively  very  little  about  what 
the  "  Doctors"  say.  It  is  reasonable,  there- 
fore, to  suppose  they  have  done  the  best  they 
can  in  finding  Scrij^ture  for  the  course  they  re- 
commend. They  could  hardly  expect  that  Bap- 
tist Churches  would  be  induced  permanently  ta 
follow  any  practice  which  the  Scriptures  do  not 
require,  or  wdiich  at  the  very  least  they  do  not 
authorize,  as  the  Churches  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
executive  in  His  kingdom,  they  must  be  go- 
verned by  His  law.  They  know  no  other  law 
than  what  is  recorded  in  His  Word.  What 
is  there,   they  are  bound   to  obey.     What  is 


CONCLUSION.  225 

not  there,    they  will   not   have   as   a  law  for 
them. 

Now,  let  my  reader  pause,  and  deliberately 
turn  back  and  carefully  collect  all  the  Scripture 
which  each  and  all  of  the  advocates  of  the  va- 
lidity of  these  immersions  have  discovered  and 
presented.  Some  of  them  have  quoted  Latin, 
but  who  has  quoted  Scripture  ?  Sustain^ this 
strange  doctrine  which  they  seek  to  impose 
upon  the  Churches  of  Christ  ?  "  Doctor 
Wayland''  says,  page  18,  It  is  time  that  we, 
above  all  others,  "should  walk  in  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free,  and  not  be 
entangled  with  any  yoke  of  bondage,"  Gal.  v. 
And  what  is  this  liberty.^  Is  it  the  liberty  to 
dispense  with  the  requisitions  which  Christ  im- 
posed upon  His  Churches,  in  that,  He  will  have 
them  withdraw  themselves  from  every  brother 
that  walketh  not  according  to  the  Gospel.  Is  it 
that  his  Churches  shall  be  free  to  recognize  as 
equal  in  authority  to  themselves,  those  to  vrhom 
Christ  gave  no  authority.  Recognize  as 
Churches  those  who  will  not  be  baptized.  As 
administrators  of  baptism,  those  who  mock  at 
baptism  !  As  having  authority  from  Him  to 
execute  the  chiefest  office  in  His  kingdom.  Is 
ilds  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us 
free  '^  Turn  to  the  passage,  and  you  will  see 
that  Paul  was  warning  the  Galatians  against 
this  very  danger  of  being  mixed  up  with,  and 
made   subservient   to  other  people   and  other 


226  PEDOBArTlST  IMMERSIONS. 

teachers  outside  the  true  Churches  of  Christ. 
It  was  the  Judaizino;  teachers  who  sought  to 
convince  them  that  it  was  not  enough  simply 
to  obey  Christ,  but  they  must  also  pay  some 
regard  to  Moses,  against  whose  yoke  he  was 
warning  them,  and  not  against  a  too  strict  ad- 
herence to  the  very  letter  of  Christ's  command- 
ments. Like  them,  these  Pedobaptists  go  back 
to  Moses  and  the  Jews  for  the  great  arguments 
on  which  they  found  the  doctrines  and  practices 
in  which,  as  Baptists,  we  mainly  differ 
from  them,  and  does  it  indicate  a  case  that  we 
shall  not  be  entangled  with  them,  nor  brought 
in  any  degree  in  bondage  to  them,  regard  our- 
selves as  bound  to  receive  their  reluctantly  con- 
ferred baptism,  and  recognize  them  thus  as  hav- 
ing authority  in  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  at  least 
equal  to,  if  not  above,  our  own.  To  every 
Baptist  Church,  I  say  with  Paul,  be  not  entan- 
gled with  any  such  yoke.  He  who  can  see  in 
this  any  authority  to  Pedobaptist  ministers  or 
Pedobaptist  Churches  to  confer  the  baptism 
they  will  not  receive  must  have  wonderful  })0w- 
ers  of  vision. 

^'Doctor  Johnson"  sa3^s,  page  19,  that  ho 
•finds  in  1  Cor.  xiv.  the  nearest  approach  to  a 
description  of  the  manner  in  which  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  is  to  be  appointed.  "  The  bretli- 
ren  of  a  religious  society  are  to  exercise  their 
gifts.  Those  who  are  blessed  with  the  apti- 
tude to  teach  will  show  it,  and  its  recognition 


CONCLUSION.  227 

by  the  body  is  tlie  authority  to  preach,  and  the 
authority  to  preach  includes  the  authority  to 
baptize.  I  therefore/'  he  adds,  "  receive  those 
^Yho  are  recognized  as  preachers  by  Episcopa- 
lians, Presbyterians,  Methodists,  and  all  ortho- 
dox believers,  and  receiving  them  as  preachers, 
I  receive  them  also  as  hapthersy  This  might 
do  very  well  if  the  Corinthian  Church  had  been 
a  company  of  unbaptized  or  sprinkled  Pedo- 
baptist  believers.  But  was  it  such  ?  Was  ii; 
a  Methodist,  or  a  Presbyterian,  or  an  Episcopal 
Church,  and  were  these  brethren  holding,  and 
teaching,  and  practicing  such  errors  as  would 
exclude  one  from  a  Baptist  Church  ?  If  so, 
then  Baptist  Churches  may  possibly  find  in  the 
14th  Chapter  of  1  Corinthians  some  shadow  of 
authority  for  the  reception  of  the  official  acts  of 
these  modern  preachers  of  false  doctrines  and 
Church-subverting  practices.  But  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Corinthian  Church  was  a 
Church  of  baptized  Christians,  nothing  can  be 
learned  from  it  except  how  to  make  a  Baptist 
minister.  If  any  one  will  turn  to  the  chapter 
and  read  it,  he  will  see  that  if  anybody  was 
made  a  minister  in  this  Corinthian  assembly  it 
was  done  hy  the  Church.  It  refers,  v.  23,  to 
what  is  done  when  the  whole  Church  has  come 
together  into  one  place.  But  the  Episcopal,  the 
Methodist,  or  the  Presbyterian  Church  never 
all  came  together,  and  never  can  all  come  to- 
gether into  one  place  to  make  a  minister  or  to 


228  PEDOBAPTI&T  IMMERSIONS. 

do  any  tiling  else,  and  this  would  of  itself  show 
that  they  were  not  referred,  even  if  such  things 
existed  in  the  Apostles'  days. 

He  who  can  see  in  the  directions  given  to  a 
local  Church  of  hapthed  believers  for  the  de- 
veloping and  recognition  of  their  gifts  of  teach- 
ing among  its  own  members  any  authority  for 
Methodist  class-leaders  or  Presbyterian  sessions 
to  determine  who  shall  be  baptized,  or  to  Epis- 
copal bishops,  or  Methodist  Conferences,  or 
Presbyterian  Presbyteries,  none  of  which  claim 
to  be  Churches  at  all  to  create  preachers  and 
appoint  baptizers,  must  have  wonderful  powers 
of  vision.  Let  any  Baptist  Church  before 
whom  this  question  is  pending,  have  the  whole 
chapter  carefully  read  and  see  which  verse  con- 
tains the  authority?     We  cannot  find  it. 

'^  Doctor  Waller"  (p.  43,)  quotes  the 
great  commission,  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach 
all  nations,  baj)tizing  them,"  &c.  But  he 
quotes  it  to  prove  just  what  we  contend  for, 
viz. :  "That  the  primitive  practice  was  clear — 
the  path  in  which  the  holy  men  of  old  walked 
is  so  plain  that  a  wayfaring  man  though  a  fool 
need  not  err  therein.  Then  all  who  believed 
and  were  baptized  were  admitted  into  the 
Church."  He  also  quotes  John  ix.  2,  and 
Matt,  xxviii.  *L6 — but  only  to  show  that  they 
were  not  rebels  who  would  not  be  baptized,  that 
in  Christ's  time  were  the  administrators  of  bap- 
tism,   but   his   own   obedient   disciples — made 


coNCLUsio:^.  229 

and  baptized  other  disciples.  And  lie  also 
quotes,  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  ^'  Now  I  praise  you, 
brethren,  that  you  remember  me  in  all  things, 
and  keep  the  ordinances  as  I  delivered  them  unto 
you  " — but  he  does  not  pretend  that  this  gives 
any  authority  to  the  unbaptized  to  baptize  be- 
lievers.— See  page  50. 

'^Dr.  Fuller"  refers  to  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  "The 
like  figure  ^hereunto  baptism  doth  also  now 
save  us,  not  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  to- 
wards  God  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ." 
He  quotes,  however,  only  part  of  the  verse,  and 
that  as  though  it  read  ^^hcq^tism  is  the  answer  of 
a  good  conscience  towards  God,"  and  from  this 
he  infers  that  if  the  candidate  thinks  he  is  bap- 
tized then  he  is  baptized.  We  might  question 
whether  it  is  the  baptism  that  is  here  called  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience.  Is  not  the  mean- 
ing rather  that  it  is  not  the  baptism  itself,  but 
"  that  answer  of  a  good  conscience"  which  the 
Christian  has  through  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
symbolized  in  the  baptism  by  which  we  are 
now  saved  ?  Such  seems  to  us  the  sense  of  the 
apostle.  But  grant  that  baptism  is  symholicaUy 
the  answer  of  good  conscience,  it  is  still  in  real- 
ity an  immersion  in  water,  and  that  immersion 
must  be  administered  by  somebody,  and  now 
the  question  is,  whether  the  fact  that  baptism 
symbolizes  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
gives  any  authority  upon  those  who  have  not 
20 


230  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

received  it  to  confer  it  upon  others.  If  baptism 
is  the  answer  of  good  conscience,  is  the  immer- 
sion on  that  account  to  be  administered  by 
those  to  whom  Christ  gave  no  authority  in  the 
commission  ?  In  other  words,  does  this  text 
authorize  unbaptized  rejectors  of  Christ's  bap- 
tism to  baptize  others  and  thus  initiate  them 
into  the  kingdom  they  vnll  not  enter?  He  who 
can  see  in  it  such  authority  must  have  wonder- 
ful powers  of  vision.  We  are  blind  to  any 
such  discovery. 

For  a  full  examination  of  the  question, 
whether  the  Church  is  to  decide  this  matter  by 
reference  to  the  conscience  of  the  applicant,  see 
Keview  of  Fuller,  page  71 — turn  back  and  read 
it  again.  He  also  quotes  the  commission,  "He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized.'"  ''  The  party," 
he  says,  "  has  believed  and  been  baptized." 
And,  like  Wayland,  he  seems  to  think  this  is 
the  end  of  controversy.  But  did  he  never  ob- 
serve that  the  commission  as  recorded  by  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  contains  no  direct  command  to 
any  one  to  be  baptized,  but  only  an  implied 
one.  There  is  a  direct  command  to  certain 
persons  to  baptize,  and  this  implies  tliat  cer- 
tain other  persons  are  to  be  baptized.  But 
these  "  Doctors",  refer  to  it  as  though  the  direct 
command  was  given  to  the  new  convert  to  be 
baptized  without  any  reference  at  all  by  im- 
plication or  otherwise  to  the  baptizer. 

Let  the  Church  that  is  about  to  take  their 


CO^^CLUSION.  231 

advice  fo.indecl  upon  this  commission  just  tm-n 
to  it  and  read  ifc  once  more — Matt,  xxviii.  19  ; 
Mark  xvi.  16 — read  the  whole  in  connection. 

Go  YE,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nation s, 
BAPTIZING  THEM  in  the  name  of  the  Fath- 
er, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ; 
teachin2:*them  to  observe  all  thing's  whatsoever 
I  have  commanded  yon.  Go  YE  into  all  the 
world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature. 
He  that  helieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved. 
The  whole  record  shows  what  the  commission 
really  was.  And  now  let  the  Church  decide 
whether  it  was  a  command. given  directly  to  the 
new  made  disciples  to  be  baptized  or  the  Church- 
es to  baptize  them.  Why  the  very  fact  that 
"  Doctor  Fuller"  calls  it  a  commission,  shows 
that  if  he  thought  about  it  for  a  single  moment 
he  could  not  have  failed  to  see  that  it  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  haptizers  and  not  to  the  candi- 
dates. Those  to  whom  this  was  addressed 
were  '^ commissioned,"  that  is,  authorized  and 
sent  out  to  do  some  designated  thing.  This 
thing  was  to  teach  and  to  baptize.  The  per- 
sons to  be  taught  and  to  be  baptized  were  not 
commissioned  to  select  their  teachers  and  bap- 
tizers  from  whatever  company  they  j)leased. 
Tlieij  were  not  commissioned  at  all — they  had 
no  authority  conferred  upon  them  at  all — they 
were  not  sent  out  at  all.  The  only  relation 
which  they  have  to  the  commission  is  incidental, 
and  arises  from  the  fact  that  if  those  commis- 


232  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

sionecl  are  to  teacli,  it  supposes  somebody  to  be 
tauglit.  If  those  commissioned  are  to  baptize, 
it  supposes  somebody  to  be  baptized.  Those 
to  be  taught  are  "all  nations/'  "every  crea- 
ture/' Those  to  be  baptized  are  those  who 
have  "  been  taught/'  and  "have  believed."  To 
see  what  is  the  real  force  of  a  commission  and 
how  absurd  is  the  application  of  it  sometimes 
made  by  Doctors  of  Divinity,  let  us  suppose 
that  certain  persons  are  "  commissioned "  by 
the  United  States  Government  to  collect  a  re- 
venue from  a  certain  class  of  people,  importers 
of  foreign  goods.  The  importer  pays  the  Tar- 
iff promptly,  not  to  the  officer  "  commissioned," 
but  to  a  fellow-merchant,  and  pleads  that  he 
has  done  all  that  the  law  required  of  him. 
Suppose  this  were  done  in  every  case — 
and  it  would  be  as  right  in  every  case  as  in  one 
case — who  does  not  see  that  the  "  commission" 
is  nullified,  repudiated,  rejected  and  scorned. 
It  has  no  more  effect  than  if  it  had  never  been 
given — and  yet  if  the  men  who  thus  reject  and 
repudiate  it  should  claim  that  they  are  authorized 
to  do  so  hy  tlie  ''^commission"  itself — that  they 
are  doing  all  that  the  "commission"  requires 
of  them,  would  not  the  government  reply,  the 
"  commission  ivas  not  addressed  to  you,  but  to 
our  officer.  He  was  commissioned  to  receive 
your  money,  and  this  made  it  your  duty  not 
merely  to  pay  it,  but  to  pay  it  to  him.  If  you 
paid  it  to  any  other  not  "'commissioned"  by  us, 


CONCLUSION.  233 

yon  did  not  do  what  tlie  '^commission  "  required. 
You  were  not  required  or  authorized  to  pay  it 
at  all,  except  as  you  were  required  to  pay  it  to 
7ii?n.  How  could  our  "commission"  to  him  to 
receive  your  taxes  authorize  you  to  pay  them  to 
some  one  else  to  whom  we  gave  no  authority  at 
ail  ? 

Or,  again,  to  take  a  case  more  directl}^  par- 
allel to  the  one  we  have  in  hand,  let  us  suppose 
t^at  the  Government  is  desirous  to  receive 
strangers  and  foreigners  who  have  resided  in 
this  country  a  certain  length  of  time,  or  who 
possess  sufficient  knowledge  of  our  institutions, 
and  profess  their  love  for  them,  into  the  num- 
ber of  its  subjects,  and  invest  them  with  all  the 
privileges  of  citizenship — and  let  us  suppose 
further,  that  every  county  in  every  State  is  di- 
vided into  certain  limited  districts,  all  the  qual- 
ified  residents  in  which  are  authorized  by  law  to 
meet  at  certain  times,  or  as  often  as  they  may 
see  fit  for  the  transaction  of  certain  official  bu- 
siness committed  to  their  charge  by  the 
Government,  and  the  observance  of  certain 
ceremonies  designed  to  keep  alive  the  fire  of 
their  patriotism,  '^o  foreigner,  however,  is  re- 
garded as  qualified  or  permitted  by  law  to  take 
any  part  in  these  meetings  until  he  has  become 
a  citizen.  The  Government  designates  the 
manner  of  becoming  a  citizen,  prescribes  a  cer- 
tain f  :)rmula  and  ceremonies,  and  '^ commissions'" 
certain  persons  to  administer  them.     Now  what 


234  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

is  the  force  of  tliis  commission — "  Go  ye?"  It 
says  to  the  persons  addressed,  who  are  already 
citizens,  "  and  teach  these  foreigners  the  things 
they  need  to  know,  and  then  make  citizens  of 
them  by  receiving  their  profession  of  allegiance 
and  administering  to  them  the  rite  or  ceremony 
of  initiation.  They  who  are  thns  qualified  and 
received  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of 
citizenship/'  What  is  the  force  of  this  "  com- 
mission?''' Does  it  authorize  the  foreis-ner  who 
thinks  he  knows  enough,  and  is  sure  he  loves 
the  country,  to  go  to  any  one  he  pleases,  and  be 
by  him  initiated,  and  then  require  the  meeting 
of  true  citizens  to  receive  him  upon  that  un- 
authorized ceremony  performed  by  an  uncom- 
missioned man,  and  without  any  authority  from 
the  Government  whatever?  The  commission 
was  not  to  7dm,  to  be  initiated  as  he  thought 
best  and  by  whom  he  pleased.  It  did  not  touch 
him  at  all  except  through  another.  It  was 
that  other,  the  Government  ofiicer,  who  was  com- 
missioned, and  the  only  force  of  it  upon  the 
candidate  for  citizenship  is  that  it  requires  him 
to  go  to  that  officer  and  to  no  one  else,  to  be  in- 
vested with  the  rights  of  citizenship. 

Something  like  to  this  actually  occurs  every 
time  a  man  is  naturalized  as  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  of  America.  There  are  certain  officers 
commissioned  to  administer  the  oath  of  allegi- 
ance, after  having  ascertained  that  he  is  duly 
qualified  to  take  it.     Now,  is  the  commission 


CONCLUSION.  235 

which  gives  these  officers  this  authority  a  com- 
mission to  the  foreigner  to  go  to  another  for- 
eigner, or  to  any  one  else  who  has  not  been  com- 
missioned to  administer  it,  and  receive  the 
formula  of  citizenship  from  anybody  he  thinks 
best?  If  so,  the  commission  is  a  nullity — it 
confers  no  authority — it  has  no  meaning — it  is 
not  a  commission  at  all. 

And  so  in  regard  to  this  commission  of  Christ, 
it  was  addressed  to  somebody.  It  supposes 
that  there  will  be  somebody  to  be  baptized,  and 
it  authorizes  somebody  to  baptize  them.  If  by 
commanding  some  to  hajJtize,  it  commands  some 
others  by  implication  to  he  baptized,  it  by  the 
same  implication  commands  them  to  be  bap- 
tized hy  tJiose,  and  only  by  those,  tvJiom  it  com- 
onands  to  baptize  them. 

"Doctor  Fuller ''  says,  (p.  68,)  "The  refer- 
ence to  the  baptism  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud, 
and  in  the  sea,  shows  how  little  the  Holy  Spirit 
regards  the  administrator,  for  there  the  only 
ministry  was  that  of  the  elements.'^  This  is 
wonderful!  Why  did  he  not  give  us  another 
example  to  the  same  purpose,  as  when  Christ 
says,  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  &g. 
Here  the  administrators  were  the  wicked  Jews. 
But  was  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  the 
baptism  which  Christ  commanded  in  the  commis- 
sion.? And  if  not,  what  has  it  to  do  with  the 
question  before  us  ?  Something  very  like  a 
baptism  happened  to  the  Jews  in  the  Eed  Sea — 


236  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

and  this  baptism,  or  something  that  could  at 
least  be  compared  to  a  baptism,  and  spoken  of 
as  a  baptism,  was  performed  without  any  au- 
thorized administrator,  and  therefore  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  quite  indifferent  as  to  whether  the  bap- 
tism which  Jesus  commanded  His  Chui'ches  to  ad- 
minister, is  administered  by  them  or  by  any  one 
who  may  choose  or  be  chosen  by  the  candidate, 
whether  in  the  Church  or  out,  authorized  or  unau- 
thorized !  When  will  people  learn  to  use  their 
common  sense  in  reasoning  about  religious  mat- 
ters, as  they  do  in  reference  to  other  subjects? 

^'Doctor  Johnson"  finds  the  authority  for 
the  reception  of  these  baptisms  in  the  fact  that 
those  who  administer  them  are  "unbaptized 
evangelists,"  and  '^unbaptized  evangelists"  are 
^'  officers  "  in  the  "  Kingdom  of  Christ."  But, 
does  he  show  us  the  chapter  and  the  verse  where 
they  are  appointed  as  such  or  alluded  to  in 
the  Scriptures.^  He  does  not  even  attempt  to 
do  it.  He  says  they  are  oflftcers — but  we  have 
only  his  word  for  it.  I  want  a  Thus  saith  the 
Lord.  "  Elder  Williams,"  the  reader  will  see 
by  turning  back  to  his  essay,  quotes  quite 
a  number  of  passages,  more  than  all  the 
others  ;  but  has  he  presented  a  single  one  which 
gives  authority  to  the  unbaptized  to  administer 
Christ's  ordinance,  while  the}^  refuse  to  receive 
it.  Has  he  even  quoted  one  for  the  purpose  of 
shovv^'ng  this,  or  with  the  claim  that  it  did  show 
tliis.^     Not  one — not  a  solitary  one.     He  goes 


CONCLUSION.  237 

to  the  Word  to  ascertcain  whether  the  candi- 
date is  responsible  for  any  unhnown  disqualifi- 
cation in  the  administrator,  and  proves  that 
"  we  must  every  one  give  account  of  himself  io 
God.  Kom.  xiv.  12.  We  do  not  dispute  this. 
He  proves  from  the  Scripture  that  John  had  his 
commission  directly  from  Heaven,  and  that  he 
was  authorized  to  baptize  those  who  had  cer- 
tain qualij&cations.  We  do  not  question  this. 
He  thinks  the  Scriptures  show  that  some  who 
were  baptized  by  Christ's  disciples,  John  iv,  2, 
proved  insincere  and  unworthy.  John  vi.  ^  6. 
It  does  not  affect  our  argument  at  all,  if  this  be 
true.  Then  he  quotes  the  commission,  and 
thus  expounds  it :  "  We  all  regard  this  as  the 
laio  of  baptism,  especially  so  far  as  ^all  nations' 
are  concerned.  Baptism,  like  the  Gospel  had 
before  been  confined  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
House  of  Israel ;  but  now,  like  the  Gospel,  has 
extended  to  all  nations.  This  law,  therefore, 
makes  no  change  either  in  the  administrator  or 
the  subject.  Before  this,  the  Savior's  discijoles 
baptized  the  dlscipled.  They  must  do  so  still." 
This  is  just  what  we  are  contending  for.  We 
perfectly  agree  with  him  in  all  all  this  ;  but  he 
goes  on  to  say,  "Hence  although  those  words  were 
spoken  to  the  apostles — the  authority  to  teach 
and  to  baptize  was  not  confined  to  them.  The 
example  of  Philip,  Acts  vii.  35,  38,  fully  shows 
this."  True  enough  ;  but  does  it  show  that  it 
was  not  confined  to  the  baptized  disciples.     If 


238  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

Philip,  first  a  Deacon  in  the  Church  at  Jerusa- 
lem and  then  an  Evangelist,  could  baptize  un- 
der this  commission,  does  it  follow  that  those 
who  are  not  Deacons,  not  Evangelists,  and  ?io^ 
even  members  of  a  true  Church,  not  even  ini- 
tiated into  the  visible  Kingdom,  despisers  and 
rejectors  of  Christ's  ordinance,  does  it  follow 
that  they  also  may  baptize  under  this  commis- 
sion ?  We  cannot  think  so.  ^nd  then  he  re- 
fers to  three  j^assages  in  which  persons  are  said 
to  have  been  baptized,  and  yet  we  are  not  told 
by  whom — and  two  others  in  which  people  were 
commanded  to  be  baptized — and  not  informed 
who  should  baptize  them.  (Acts  ii.  41 ;  x.  48  ; 
xix.  3  :  ii.  38  ;  x.  48.)  But  what  follows  from 
all  this.?  What  if  there  were  a  hundred  or  a 
thousand  places  in  which  baptism  is  mentioned 
without  saying  who  was  the  administrator.? 
Would  not  the  laio  of  haptisra  referred  to  above 
determine  in  every  case  who,  under  that  law, 
should  be  the  baptizers.?  And  what  says  the 
laiVj  according  to  Elder  Williams'  own  exposi- 
tion of  \i?  It  says,  "  The  Savior's  disciples 
must  baptize  the  discipled."  Does  it  follow 
because  the  administrator  is  not  mentioned  that 
he  might  have  been  a  priest  of  Jujnter,  or  a  Jew- 
ish Rabbi,  or  Grecian  philosojiher.?  Can  Elder 
Williams,  or  any  other  man  possessed  of  com- 
mon sense,  imagine  that  because  it  is  not  here 
recorded  who  baptized  them,  or  that  they  were 
not  informed  who  should  baptize  them  that  they 


CONCLUSION.  239 

were  baptized  by  people  who  would  not  them- 
selves receive  Christ's  baptism?  Certainly  not. 
He  had  no  such  idea  in  his  mind.  He  did  not 
refer  to  the  places  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
any  snch  absurd  and  foolish  theory.  His  ob- 
ject was  to  show  that  the  candidate  and  the 
administrator  was  each  responsible  for  himself — 
and  that  if  the  administrator  is  wo^- authorized, 
it  is  no  concern  of  the  candidate.  We  do  not 
think,  however,  that  the  texts  prove  even  this  ; 
but  if  they  did,  it  would  not  affect  the  question 
before  us — that  is  a  question  of  Church  duty ; 
and  whether  the  candidate  is  responsible  or  not, 
the  Church  most  certainly  is. 

The  administration  of  baptism  is  an  official 
act,  done  by  authority  of  the  Church,  and  the 
question  is,  whether  she  can,  in  her  official  ca- 
pacity as  a  Church  of  Christ,  recognize  as  Scrip- 
tural and  valid  the  ofiicial  acts  of  those  whom 
she  does  not  and  cannot,  without  yielding  her 
own  right  to  existence  as  a  Church,  recognize  as 
having  any  authority  to  perform  them. 

But  even  if  the  question  were  one  between 
the  candidate  and  the  administrator  alone,  and 
in  which  the  Church  had  nothing  to  say,  we 
have  shown  distinctly  that  the  candidate  is  re- 
sponsible. If  the  candidate  is  hound  hy  the 
commission  to  be  baptized  at  all,  he  is  bound  to 
be  baptized  by  those  to  whom  the  commission 
to  baptize  was  given. 

Where,  then,  we  ask  again,  is  the  Scriptural 


240  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

author ity  wliicli  the  Churclies  must  demand 
and  receive  before  they  can  adopt  the  principle 
which  requires  them  to  receive  these  baptisms 
as  authorized  by  Christ  as  lawful  and  valid,  ac- 
cording to  the  Word  of  God?  It  has  not  been 
found.  There  is  not  even  the  shadow  of  it  visi- 
ble. They  have  abundance  of  proof  that 
thus  saith  ^'Doctor"  A.,  and  thus  saith 
"  Doctor"  B.,  thus  saith  Doctor  C,  and  thus 
saith  "  Doctor  "  D.  But  not  the  semblance  of 
proof  that  '^  Tims  saith  the  Lord!' 

And  how  is  it  on  the  other  side.^  Can  loc 
find  any  ^'  Thus  saith  the  Lord  ?"  Is  there 
any  Scripture  which  limits  the  administration  at 
all,  and  if  at  all,  to  whom  ?  We  have  already 
seen,  that  if  there  were  not — if  in  the  Scriptures 
it  were  left  an  open  question  to  be  decided  by 
considerations  other  than  the  expressed  will  of 
the  Master,  we  have  seen  that  even  then,  con- 
sistency and  common  sense  would,  of  necessity, 
prevent  every  Baptist  Church  from  receiving 
these  immersions.  And,  therefore,  having  shown 
that  there  is  no  Scripture  requiring  their  recej)- 
tion,  our  argument  is  complete  and  unanswera- 
ble without  going  any  further.  Our  object  is 
accomplished  if  we  stop  just  here.  Nothing  but 
the  fullest  and  plainest  conviction  that  the 
Scriptures  absolutely  require  Baptist  Churches 
to  receive  such  baptisms  as  valid,  could,  we 
think,  in  view  of  the  considerations  already  pre- 
sented, induce  them  so  to  outrage  all   Baptist 


CONCL*[JSION.  241 

consistency  and  the  dictates  of  common  reason 
as  to  admit  them. 

"But  now,  if  we  can  show  by  but  one  single 
precept,  or  one  single  example,  or  by  any  fair 
and  neceiisaTy  inference  that  the  Scriptures  not 
only  do  not  require  or  authorize,  but  absohitely 
and  positively /o?^&icZ  ^w^proliihit  the  Churches 
of  Christ  to  receive  such  immersions  as  valid, 
and  those  thus  immersed  as  Church  members, 
V7e  shall  have  done  thus  much  more  than  the, 
nature  of  the  case  requires  of  us.  And  if  we 
fail  to  do  it,  our  argument  already  constructed 
stands  just  as  firmly  as  if  we  succeed.  ^Ye  will 
make  the  attempt. 

AKGUilE^'T      NUMBER    ELEVEN. WHAT       SAITH 

THE      SCRIPTUEE  ? 

We  do  not  expect  to  find  any  passage  of  the 
Word  of  God,  which  says  in  so  many  words, 
"You  shall  not  regard  that  as  true  baptism 
which  was  conferred  by  Pedobaptist  and  Camp- 
bellite  ministers  without  authority  from  any 
true  Church  of  baptized  believers.'"  We  no 
more  look  for  this,  than  we  look  for  the  text 
which  says  "  You  shall  not  regard  as  true  and 
valid  baptism  that  which  was  conferred  on  one 
in  open  unbelief  or  in  helpless  infancy '' — or 
that  which  says,  "  You  shall  not  baptize  such 
helpless  infants,  or  any  others  who  have  not  be- 
lieved.'' Yet  we  think  we  can  make  the  nrohi- 
21 


242  PEDOBAPTISI?  IMMERSIONS. 

bition  very  plain,  and  that  without  the  assist- 
ance of  many  words. 

1st.  We  base  our  argument  upon  the  words 
of  the  great  commission  so  often  quoted.  "  Go 
ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them."  &c.     Matt,  xxviii.  19  :    Mark  xvi.  16. 

This  is  now  our  law  for  baptizing.  Those 
whom  this  authorizes  to  be  baptized,  and  only 
those,  are  to  be  baptized,  unless  there  can  be 
shown  some  other  law  for  baptizing  others. 
Those  whom  tMs  authorizes  to  baptize  them, 
and  they  alone,  are  authorized  to  administer  the 
ordinance,  unless  there  can  be  shown  elsewhere 
some  o^/^er  authority  for  other  persons  to  do  the 
same  thing. 

The  question  is,  therefore,  whether  this  com- 
mission,  "Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  which  I  have  commanded 
you,  and  lo  I  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the 
end  of  the  w^orld.  Go  ye  into  all  the  world 
and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved, 
but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.'* 
Does  this  commission  "  all  the  world  and  the 
rest  of  mankind  '^  to  administer  the  ordinance, 
or  does  it  limit  the  duty  of  baptizing  to  a  cer- 
tain class  ?  Was  it  a  universal  commission  to 
all  persons  who  might  choose  to  become  bap- 
tizers,  or  was  it  a  commission   only  to   such  as 


CONCLUSION.  243 

iJiose  to  ivhom  it  ivas  addressed  ?  When  Christ 
said,  Go  ?/e,  and,  Lo,  I  am  with  you,  did  he 
mean,  Go  every  one  ivlio  lias  the  strength  to  put 
another  m  the  tuater,  and  feels  disposed  to  do 
it,  and,  Lo,  I  am  with  the^n.  The  case  is  too 
plain  to  need  argument.  No  denomination  or 
class  oi  persons,  so  far  as  I  know,  who  have  re- 
cognized this  as  having  any  present  force,  have 
ever  heen  so  foolish  as  to  imagine  that  it  was 
intended  to  authorize  everybody,  believer  or 
unbeliever^  baptized  or  unbaptized,  whether 
preacher  or  private  member,  in  the  Church  or 
out  of  it,  to  administer  the  ordinances  to  such 
as  might  desire  their  services.  Even  those 
Baptists  who  recognize  it  as  extending  to  per- 
sons out  of  the  Church,  and  who  will  not  them- 
selves obey  it  by  being  baptized,  have  never 
pretended  that  it  had  no  Ii7nit. 

Even  they  admit  that  it  was  not  intended  to 
authorize  everyhody,  and  make  any  one  who 
might  choose  to  act  in  that  capacity,  a  valid 
administrator  of  Christ's  holy  ordinance.  But 
if  limited  at  all,  the  limit  must  be  definite. 

This  commission  was  given  to  somebody. 
It  conferred  authority  on  somebody.  It  requir- 
ed this  specific  duty  of  baptizing  believers  to  be 
performed  by  somebody.  And  that,  "even  to 
the  end  of  the  world.''  Now,  who  was  it  ? 
Not  the  infidel  and  the  scoffer.  Not  the  thought- 
less and  impenitent.  This,  no  one  ever  claim- 
ed.    But  did  it  not   authorize  all  believers  to 


244  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

baptize  all  other  believers  ?  Some  people 
seem  to  think  so.  They  plead  the  piety  and 
sincerity  of  Pedobaptist  ministers  as  their  quali- 
fication. But  those  to  whom  the  commission 
was  addressed  were  something  more  than  pious 
penitent  believers.  Here  is  the  proof.  Such 
people  were  recognized  by  the  commission  as 
the  subjects  to  be  baptized,  but  not  as  the 
persons  to  administer  baptism.  '^  Eepent  and 
he  haptized."  "  He  that  helieveth  and  is  baptiz- 
ed." They  were  not  the  "Ye''  who  were  to 
baptize  them.  Something  more  was  needful  to 
a  baptizer.  What  was  it  ?  Could  it  be  less 
than  that  he  shc^ild  himself  have  been  baptized.? 
Must  he  not  first  obey  the  command,  believe 
and  be  baptized,  before  he  could  set  himself  up 
as  a  preacher  of  faith  and  a  baptizer  of  others  ? 
It  may  have  been  more,  but  less  than  this  it 
could  not  have  been,  and  no  man  who  is 
destitute  of  this  qualification  can  ever  claim 
to  be  a  valid  baptizer  under  this  commission, 
on  the  ground  that  he  has  repented  and  believed, 
orj  in  other  words,  is  a  truly  converted  and 
pious  man. 

But  was  there  no  further  limitation.?  Was 
this  commission  given  to  all  believers  ivho  have 
been  ba^^tized?  Does  it  authorize  every  bap- 
tized believer,  male  or  female,  child  or  adult,  to 
administer  the  ordinance  when  called  upon  to 
do  so  by  any  one  who  regards  himself  as  a  be- 
liever.?    It   will    be  observed  that  the    same 


CONCLUSION.  245 

persons  are  to  baptize  who  are  to  preach  and  to 
teach.  ''Go  YE  into  all  the  world  and 
PEEACH  the  Gospel.^^  "  Go  YE,  therefore, 
and  TEACH  all  nations,  BAPTIZING  them." 
The  work  of  preaching  and  baptizing  are  com- 
mitted to  the  same  hands,  and  it  folloAvs  that 
the  commission  is  limited  not  only  to  baptized 
heNevers,  but  to  hcqjtized  preacliers  of  the  Gos- 
pel. If  all  baptized  believers  are  commissioned 
by  it  to  go  and  preach,  then  all  baptized  believ- 
ers are  commissioned  by  it  to  baptize  those  who 
believe  their  preaching  with  a  saving  faith. 
But  as  no  UNbaptized  believer  was  authorized 
by  it  to  do  any  thing  but  "  to  be  baptized," 
such  were  certainly  not  commissioned  either  to 
preach  or  to  Ijaptize  ;  and  unless  there  can  be 
found  some  othei'  commission  conferring  the  au- 
thority to  do  either  one  or  the  other,  they  cer- 
tainly have  no  authority  to  do  either.  But  that 
all  baptized  believers  were  not  to  be  preachers 
and  baptizers  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact 
that  the  same  persons  wdio  were  to  preach  and 
then  to  baptize  were  to  continue  ^^  teaching  " 
those  who  had  been  baptized  "  all  things  which 
Christ  had  commanded  them."  From  which  it 
would  seem  evident  that  they  were  not  cdl  to 
take  rank  at  once  as  teachers  and  baptizers  with 
those  who  had  preached  the  Gospel  to  them 
and  baptized  them. 

Thus  have  I  made  it  plain  from  the  very  lan- 
guage of  the  commission  itself  that  it  could  not 


246  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

have  been  intended  to  authorize  all  believers,  or 
even  all  baptized  believers,  to  baptize  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  It 
limits  the  right  and  the  duty  to  certain  persons; 
and  if  Grod  limits  and  confines  the  authority  to 
them,  he  of  course  takes  it  away  from  all  other Sj 
unless  we  will  adopt  the  absurd  conclusion  that 
what  Christ  lias  expressly  confined  and  limited 
to  some,  is  yet  not  limited  at  all,  but  is  just  as 
open  and  free  to  all  as  though  he  had  made  no 
limitation  whatever. 

And  thus  also  have  I  made  plain,  from  the 
words  of  the  commission  itself,  that  the  Churches 
of  Christ  must^as  the  executors  of  this  commission, 
limit  the  administration  within  the  same  bounds, 
unless  you  will  adopt  this  other  absurdity  that 
the  Churches  of  Christ,  acting  under  the  au- 
thority of  this  commission,  are  at  liberty  to  ap- 
13oint  or  recognize  as  the  administrators  of  bap- 
tism, the  very  persons  whom  the  commission 
itself  expressly  excludes  from  baptizing. 

The  argument  is  complete  and  conclusive, 
unless  there  can  be  found  some  other  commis- 
sion given  to  the  mihajotized  believers  and  au- 
thorizing them  to  confer  on  others  that  baptism 
which  they  refuse  tQ  receive  themselves,  though 
it  is  expressly  required  of  them,  and  is  the  only 
thing  that  is  required  of  them  in  this  commission. 

But  agahi.  We  will  be  driven  to  the  same 
conclusion  by  another  process  if  we  examine  the 
words  of  this  commission  in  connection  with  the 


CONCLUSION.  247 

cxam2:>Ies  of  baptism  as  given  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. 

This  was,  as  we  have  seen,  a  Joint  commis- 
sion to  preach,  baptize,  and  then  to  teach  all 
that  Christ  commanded.  It  was,  as  we  learn 
from  both  Matthew  and  Mark,  given  to  the 
eleven  sm'viving  apostles  ;  but  the  addition  to 
it  of  the  words  ''Lo  I  am  with  you  always,  even 
to  the  end  of  the  tcorld/'  shows  that  it  was  not 
intended  exclusively  for  them  as  individuals — 
They  were  addressed  as  the  representatives  of 
the  Churches  which  they  should  establish,  and 
the  successors  of  those  Churches  "to  the  end  of 
the  world."  To  the  Churches,  therefore,  the 
commission  says,  Gro  ye  and  preach  my'  Gospel 
to  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  &c.  But  how 
was  this  to  be  accomplished?  V/as  ea,ch  Church 
member,  for  himself  or  herself,  to  set  up  preach- 
ing and  baptizing?  '  The  apostles  did  not  so 
understand  it  ;  and  being  Divinely  inspired, 
they  must  have  understood  it  truly.  Their 
understanding  of  it  we  gather  from  their  ]n'ac- 
tice  and  teachings  in  the  Churches.  From 
this  source  it  appears  that  all  the  individual 
members  of  the  Churches  were  not  commis- 
sioned to  become  preachers  and  baptizers,  each 
in  his  0ZV71  person,  but  the  Churches,  as  such, 
collectively,  Avere  charged  with  the  duty  of  ap- 
pointing, setting  apart*  and  sustaining  faithful 
and  competent  men  for  this  purpose. 

The  commission  itself,  as  we  have  seen,  ex- 


248  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMESSIONS, 

pressly  prohibits  equally  tlie  unbelieving  and 
the  imhajJtized,  hy  commanding  them  not  to 
preach  or  to  hapike  believers,  but  to  believe 
and  BE  BAPTIZED  themselves ;  and  the  interpre- 
tation of  it  by  the  inspired  apostles,  shows  that 
those  who  have  believed  and  been  baptized  are 
not  all  to  become  preachers  and  baptizers,  but 
are  to  appoint  chosen  meii  not  from  among  the 
unhelievers  or  from  among  the  W2ha2:)iized,  but 
of  their  otvn  mimher^  to  minister  in  these  offices, 
and  thus  fulfil  the  Savior's  command  to  preacli 
and  to  baptize. 

These  |>ersons  were  called  Bishops  or  Pastors 
when  they  had  the  charge  or  oversight  of  a 
Church — Elders  when  reference  w\^s  had  to 
their  official  station — Evangelists  when  they 
travelled  as  missionaries  from  place  to  place., 
preaching  and  baptizing  as  Phillip  did.  That 
they  were  the  preachers  under  this  commission 
the  narrative  most  clearly  shows,  and  it  is  a  fair^, 
an  almost  necessary  infc-rence,  that  they  w^ere 
also  the  haptizers,  except  the  Churches  might 
see  fit,  in  any  instance,  to  appoint  some  one  to 
baptize  and  not  to  preach,  or  to  preach  and  not 
baptize.  The  Churches  were  charged  to  do 
both.  The  appointment  of  chosen  men  from 
among  themselves  to  preach,  shows  how  the' 
apostles  understood  this  part  of  the  commis- 
sion ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  narrative  to 
show  that  they  did  not  understand  that  part 
relating  to  hapti7d7ig  in  the  same  way.     In  the 


CONCLUSION.  249 

absence  of  any  proof  to  tlie  contrary,  we  cannot 
help  believing  that  the  Churches  apj^omted  ths 
haptizers,  and  did  not  leave  tlie  office  to  be  as- 
sumed by  any  one  in  the  Church  who  might 
choose  to  officiate — ^much  less  to  the  priests  of 
Jupiter,  or  Priests  of  Judaism,  or  any  other 
unbaptized  and  uninitiated  believer  or  unbe- 
liever out  of  the  Church. 

And  though  not  a  circumstance  had  been 
given  by  which  we  could  determine  whether  the 
baptizers  were  properly  qualified,  and  duly  au- 
thorized or  not,  I  would  feel  sure  that  they 
must  have  been,  since  the  apostles  could  not 
but  regard  the  plain  arguments  of  the  commis- 
fsion  under  which  they  were  acting.  But  let  us 
look  at  theso  examples.  In  no  one  of  them  is 
there  any  evidence  that  the  baptism  was  con- 
ferred by  any  one  who  was  not  appointed  and 
fidly  authorized  either  by  a  commission  from 
Christ  himself  or  from  a  Baptist  Church,  or  an 
inspired  apostle.  There  is  not  the  shadow  of 
evidence  that  a-ny  and  every  person  was  equally 
qualified  or  that  any  one  was  ever  recognized  as 
a  proper  administrator  of  the  ordinance  without 
being  qualified. 

But,  now,  let  us  look  at  the  eKamples  of  the 
administration  of  baptism  which  we  can  find  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  see  if  there  is  any  one  in 
which  the  administrator  acted  without  autho- 
rity from  Christ  himself^  an  inspired  apostle,  or 


250  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMEKSIOSTS. 

a  Baptist  Cliurcli  acting  as  Clmst's  executire 
under  this  commission. 

The  first  example  of  a  baptizer  was  that  of 
John.  Did  he  take  on  himself  the  office  with- 
out authority.^  No.  He  says,  John  i.  33. 
that  he  was  expressly  '*  sent  to  baptize.''  The 
great  King  ^'sent"  him  to  prepare  a  people 
made  ready  for  his  kingdom.  John  was  ap- 
pointed— set  apart  to  the  work  of  preaching  and 
baptizing  believers — and  the  simple  fact  that 
HE  alone  was  at  that  time  commissioned  is 
enough  to  show  that  he  alone  could  at  that 
time  confer  valid  baptism.  There  is  no  record 
that  in  his  day  any  one  not  specially  appointed, 
whether  baptized  or  unbaptized,  took  it  upon 
himself  to ^ administer  the  ordinance. 

The  neod  example  is  that  of  the  disciples  of 
Jesus.  We  read  that  Jesus  went  into  a  certain 
place,  and  there  he  tarried  and  baptized- — but 
that  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  dis- 
ciples, John  iii.  22;  iv.  2.  These  disciples  were 
certainly  cqjpomted  by  Christ  to  do  this  work, 
or  their  baptizing  could  not  have  been  spoken  of 
as  though  it  had  been  done  by  himself. 

The  j^/iiVd  example  is  the  first  under  the  com- 
mission, that  of  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  (Acts  ii.) 
The  apostles  were  that  day  the  preacJiers.  They 
were  acting  under  the  commission,  "  go  preach 
and  baptize."  Is  not  the  inference  a  necessary 
one,  that  either  they,  or  some  one  of  those  ^'dis- 


CONCLUSION.  251 

dples  who  liacl  been  appointed  baptizers  by 
Jesus  himself,  or  some  one  appointed  by  them- 
selves as  liis  apostles,  having  authority  to  set  all 
things  in  order,  were  the  baptizers  ?  Is  there 
room  for  even  a  suspicion  that  any  of  these  three 
thousand  were  baptized  by  Pedobaptist  minis- 
ters, or  without  authority  specially  conferred  ? 

The  fourih  example  is  that  of  the  Samari- 
tans, both  men  and  v/omen,  who  believed  at  the 
preaching  of  Phihp.  Who  baptized  tliem^ 
Philip  was  the  preacher  under  the  commission. 
Was  he  not  also  the  baptizer  under  the  same 
commission?  Is  there  room  for  a  suspicio?i  that 
any  of  these  were  baptized  by  a  Pedobaptist 
minister  who  had  not  obeyed  the  commission  by 
being  baptized,  and  consequently  could  not  act 
under  it  as  a  baptizer  of  others. 

The  fifth  example  is  that  in  which  Philij:*  im- 
mersed the  eunuch,  in  the  same  chapter.  Here 
Philip  is  mentioned  as  the  baptizer  as  well  as 
the  preacher.  He  opened  his  mouth  and 
preached  Jesus  unto  him;  and^  upon  profession 
of  his  faith,  he  baptized  him  by  authority  of 
the  same  commission  which  appointed  him  to 
preach. 

The  s{a:th  example  is  in  the  next  chajiter, 
(Acts  ix.) — the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus. 
Who  baptized  him  ?  One  Ananias,  a  man 
inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  sent  to  2^r€ach 
to  him,  and  to  restore  his  sight,  by  the  Lord 
Jesus  himself;  who  had  appeared  to  Saul  in  the 


252  PEDOBAI'TIST    IMMERSIOI^S. 

way  as  lie  came  to  Damascus;  and  there  is  ererj 
reason  to  suppose  that  he,  and  not  some  unbap- 
tized  heUever  or  unbehever  in  the  cit}^,  adminis- 
tered the  ordinance^  when  he  said  ''arise  and  be 
baptized." 

The  seventh  example  is  that  in  which  Corne- 
lius, and  those  with  him,  who  believed  and  re- 
joiced in  Grod,  and  spake  with  tongues,  were 
baptized,  (Acts  x.)  Peter  had  done  the^^reac/i- 
ing,  and,  though  he  did  not  administer  the  bap- 
tism himself,  he,  as  the  divinely  inspired  apostle^ 
had  the  right  to  appoint,  and  did  appoint 
another  or  others  to  do  it.  But  did  any  one 
ever  suspect  that  he  appointed  one  of  the  new 
converts  to  baptize  the  others,  or  did  he  com- 
mand them  to  be  baptized  by  '^tlie  brethren'^ 
whom  he  had  brought  vfith  him,  and  whom  he 
had  consulted  about  the  propriety  of  conferring 
the  ordinance? 

The  eightli  example,  which  I  find  was  that  of 
Lydia,  (Acts  xvi.)  Paul  and  Silas,  both  Bap- 
tist ministers,  were  i present.  Paul  had  done 
the  preaching,  and  one  of  them  must  have  done 
the  baptizing. 

They  were  put  into  the  prison,  and  this  led 
to  the  conversion  of  the  jailor  and  his  family. 
And,  although  their  backs  were  sore  from  the 
scourging,  and  their  legs  lame  from  the  bruis- 
ing of  the  stocks,  no  one  has  ever  suspected  that 
they  called  in  some  .unbaptized  Jew  or  Gentile 
to  confer  the  ordinance  in  this  the  oiinth  case. 


CONCLUSION.  25 


Oo 


The  tenth  I  find  in  the  18th  chaptei'j  where 
we  only  read  that  many  of  the  Corinthians  he- 
lieved  and  were  baptized.  Paul  was  there,  with 
Silas  and  Timothy.  He  says,  in  one  of  hi.s 
epistles,  that  Jie  baptized  but  few  of  them ;  but 
would  he,  while  two  baptized  ministers  were 
present,  call  upon  the  unbaptized  newly-eon- 
verted  heathen  to  baptize  each  other  ? 

The  eleventh  example  was  the  re-baptism,  if 
indeed  they  were  re-baptized,  of  the  twelve 
disciples,  discovered  by  Paul,  who  had  received 
something  as  baptism  from  somebody,  as  ad- 
ministrator, but  without  so  much  as  knowinp; 
whether  there  vrere  any  Holy  Spirit,  (Acts  xix.) 
Paul  was  the  preacher,  and  there  is  not  the 
most  distant  intimation  that  some  unbaptized 
man  was  the  baptizer. 

These,  I  think,  are  all  the  examples  one  can 
find,  and  as  no  one  of  them  furnishes  any  evi- 
dence that  any  but  a  duly  qualified  and  properly 
appointed  administrator  executed  the  behest  of 
Christ's  commission  to  the  Churches,  we  are 
compelled  to  believe  that  the  apostles  under- 
stood and  taught  the  Churches  that  if  certain 
persons  w^ere  required  to  be  baptized,  th^re  wer*^ 
certain  persons,  and  no  others,  whose  duty  it 
was  to  baptize  them  ;  and,  imless  these  first 
ministers  were  Pedobaptist  or  Campbellite 
preachers,  Pedobaptist  or  Campbellite  preach- 
ers were  not  of  the  number  of  those  who  wcru 
22 


254  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

appointed  or  recognized  as  qualified  administra- 
tors under  tlie  commission  '^go  YE,''  &c. 

But  there  is  yet  another  way  in  which  we  caD 
decide  this  question  from  the  Scriptures.  It 
will  he  conceded  that  whatever  the  Word  said 
to  the  first  Churches  was  intended  for  our  in- 
struction. What  would  have  been  wrong  for 
tlitm  to  do  in  view  of  the  teachings  of  Chris-t 
and  the  apostles  is  now  wrong  for  us  to  do,  as 
the  Churches  of  Christ.  Let  us,  then,  suppose 
this  case  to  have  come  up  in  the  life-time  of  the 
apostles,  and  see  if  we  cannot  find  some  genera) 
rules  laid  dov/n,  by  \^iich  it  must  at  once  and 
easily  have  been  decided. 

Those  first  Churches,  we  believe,  were  Ba'p- 
tlst  Churches,  both  in  regard  to  their  organiza- 
tion, their  doctrines  and  tlieir  ordinances.  Now, 
let  us  suppose  that  some  preacher  among  them 
had  begun  all  at  once  to  sprinkle  babies,  and  in- 
sist that  this  was  the  baptism  that  Christ  com- 
manded, and  that  the  neglect  to  have  it  done 
was  a  sin  against  God.  What  instructions  would 
the  Church  find  in  the  W^ord  concerning  such  a 
man.?  Would  they  not  turn  to  2d  Thcss.  iii.  6, 
and  read  :  "  Now,  we  command  you,  brethren, 
in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye 
loitlidran}  yourselves  from  every  brother  that 
walketh  disorderly  and  not  after  the  tradition 
which  he  received  of  us.''  And  to  Eomans  xvi. 
17  :  ^^Now,  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them 
which  cause  divisions  and  offenses,  contrary  to 


CONCLUSION.  255 

the  doctrine  which  ye  have  learned,  and  avoid 
them."  What  duty  does  this  impose  upon  the 
Church  ?  Must  she  not  cast  out  of  her  com- 
pany such  an  one  ?  Must  she  not  disown  him 
and  his  official  acts  ?  Yes  1  If  he  is  a  bro- 
ther, a  memher  of  the  Baptist  Church,  and 
does  and  teaches  thus,  she  must  depose  him 
from  her  ministry  and  exclude  him  from  her 
communion.  No  Baptist  doubts  this.  But, 
now,  suppose  he  gatliers  a  company  of  these 
people,  sprinkled  for  baptism  when  they  were 
little  .babes,  and  organizes  them  into  a  society, 
and  calls  it  a  Church  of  Christ,  and  claims  by 
its  authority,  as  its  minister,  to  confer  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism  on  believers,  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  and  then  insists  that  the  Churches  which 
could  not  commune  with  him  or  fellowship  his 
doctrines,  the  Churches  who  had  deposed  and 
excommunicated  him,  shall  recognize  as  lawful 
and  Scriptural  his  official  administration  of 
Christ's  ordinance.  Would  not  the  same  law 
which  repudiated  and  condemned  him  as  a  bro- 
ther, trebly  condemn  him  as  the  leader  of 
another  and  a  rival  organization.^  Surely,  what 
the  Church  could  not  countenance  in  a  brother, 
she  could  not  receive  and  endorse  in  him  as  a 
stranger!  No  man  of  common  sense,  who  rea- 
sons about  religious  matters  as  he  does  about 
other  things,  would  ever  dream  of  doing  it.  If 
the  Scriptures  had  required  it,  we  v\'ould  have 
thought  the  Bible  a  strange  and  contradictory 


256  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

book.  But  no  one  claims  that  they  require  it. 
Some  think  they  have  found  authority  in  the 
Word  for  unbaptized  men  to  poxacJi  without  au- 
thority from  any  Church.  "  Let  him  that  heareth 
say  come/^  seems  to  be  regarded  by  them  as  a 
second  commission,  more  extended  than  the  one 
we  have  been  considering,  and  authorizing  every 
man  vi^ho  hears  the  Gospel  to  officiate  as  a 
preacher  of  the  Gospel.  But  no  one  has  yet 
found  any  text  which  says  "let  him  that  hear- 
eth" baptize  believers  ;  nor  indeed  any  one  which 
confers  the  authority  to  baptize  on  any  but 
those  who  are  duly  qualified  and  properly  ap- 
pointed by  the  true  Churches,  to  whom,  and  to 
whom  alone,  Christ  has  committed  the  authority 
in  his  visible  kingdom.  And  until  such  a  text 
is  found,  the  commission,  the  examples  and  the 
instructions  to  the  Churches  which  we  have 
just  examined,  will  not  permit  a  doubt  as  to  the 
duty  of  such  Churches  to  reject  as  unlawful 
and  unauthorized,  not  only  without  law,  but 
against  law,  all  pretended  baptisms  conferred 
without  such  authority. 

Here  we  rest ;  our  task  is  done.  Let  any 
man  or  any  Church  that  still  will  insist  on  re- 
ceiving as  valid  these  immersions,  take  up  our 
arguments,  one  by  one,  or  altogether,  and  point 
out  the  errors,  if  any  there  be,  in  the  process  of 
our  reasoning.  If  there  be  none,  then,  cer- 
tainly the  question  is  decided  both  by  Scripture 
and  by  reason. 


EIGHT    CASES    FOR    ArPLICATION.  257 


CHAPTEE  IX. 

EIGHT    CASES    FOR    APPLICATION. 

It  yet  remains  to  apply  the  principles  above 
^established  to  such  cases  as  have  actually  been 
presented,  or  may  be  presented  to  the- Churches 
for  determination.  Such  cases,  however  various 
in  detail,  may  all  be  reduced  to  two  classes- — 
those  in  which  the  baptism  was  directly  or  indi- 
rectly autliorized  hy  a  true  Church  of  baptized 
believers,  and  those  in  which  it  was  not.  Where 
it  teas  thus  authorized,  it  may  be  received. 
Where  it  was  fiot,  it  must  be  rejected. 

The  First  Case  we  will  notice  is  that  which 
lia.s  been  most  frequently  presented,  and  that  is 
where  the  candidate  was  at  the  time  of  his  pub- 
lic profession  of  religion  so  fully  convinced 
that  Christ's  baptism  was  immersion^  that  he 
insisted  upon  being  immersed,  although  he  did 
not  unite  with  a  Baptist  church  ;  and,  in  com- 
pliance Avith  his  desire,  the  minister  of  a  Metho- 
dist, or  Presbyterian,  or  some  other  society,  ad- 
ministered to  him  the  so-called  ])aptism,  by 
which  he  became  a  member  of  that  society.  In 
regard  to  such  a  case  nothing  more  need  be 


258  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

said.  Tlie  grounds  upon  which  the  Church 
should  reject  such  a  baptism  have  been  made 
sufficiently  plain  by  the  whole  tenor  of  our  ar- 
guments. 

The  Second  CxYSe  may  not  seem  quite  so 
clear.  It  is  one  in  which  the  baptism  w^as  con- 
ferred by  a  minister  then  acting  under  the  au- 
thority of  some  other  body  than  a  Baptist 
church,  but  who  had  once  been  baptized,  and, 
it  may  be,  ordained  as  a  Baptist  minister. 
Here  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  the  baptism  is 
invalid  on  the  ground  that  the  administrator  is 
liimself  unhaptized,  but  it  must  be  admitted 
that  it  was  performed  toitJioiit  autlwrity^  direct 
or  indirect  from  any  Baptist  church,  since  no 
church  can  be  supposed  to  confer  authority  to 
administer  Christ's  ordinances  upon  a  deposed 
minister  or  an  excluded  member  ;  and  no  min- 
ister could  be  found  officiating  for  a  Pedobaptist 
society,  and,  in  their  name,  administering  the 
ordinances,  who  is  not  or  ought  not  to  be  de- 
posed and  excluded  from  a  Baptist  church,  if 
he  ever  had  any  connection  with  one.  We 
have  said,  and  shown  again  and  again,  that  it 
is  not  for  want  of  baptism,  but  for  want  of 
church  membership  and  authority,  that  these 
baptisms  are  to  be  regarded  as  invalid. 

The  Third  Case  is  where  the  immersion 
was  administered  by  a  Baptist  minister  in  the 
name  of  a  Baptist  Church  and  by  their  authori- 
ty, but  with  the  understanding  that  the  bap- 


EIGHT    CASES    FOR    APPLICATIONS  259 

tized  person  was  not  to  be  received  into  the 
Church  as  a  Baptist,  but  to  unite  with  some 
of  the  Pedobaptist  societies,  or  remain  without 
any  visible  connection  with  any  religious  orga- 
nization. This  is  a  case  which  may  possibly  ad- 
mit of  doubt.  It  is  certain  that  no  Church 
should  authorize,  and  no  minister  should  admin- 
ister a  baptism  under  such  circumstances. 
But  yet,  having  been  done  by  Church  authority 
and  by  a  right  adniinistrator,  the  administra- 
tion should,  in  our  op)inion,  be  rejected,  upon 
the  grounds  that  the  candidate  was  disqualified 
to  receive  it,  as  certainly  in  most,  or  all  such 
cases,  he  must  be  ;  and  that  the  Church  exceed- 
ed the  constitutional  limits  of  her  authority 
when  she  undertook  to  baptize  a  member  into  a 
society  of  errorists,  or  with  the  intention  to 
leave  him  in  the  sinful  world  with  no  Church 
connection.  Baptist  Churches  should  baptize 
only  those  who  so  far  understand,  and  so  design 
to  obey  Christ's  laws,  that  they  will  not  refuse 
association  with  Christ's  visible  people. 

Case  Fourth,  is  where  a  Baptist  minister, 
acting  by  authority  of  a  Baptist  Church,  has 
baptized  converts,  but  without  having  been 
himself  properly  baptized — that  is  to  say,  he 
was  immersed  by  a  Methodist,  or  a  Presbyte- 
riaii,  or  a  Campbellite,  and  by  the  authority  of 
some  of  those  organizaiions,  and  was  received 
by  a  Baptist  Church  regarding  that  as  true 
baptism,  and  by  it  ordained,  and  put  into  the 


260  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMEESIONS. 


ministry.  Is  a  baptism  conferred  by  liim  a 
valid  baptism  ?  We  answer  upon  the  prin- 
ciples already  laid  down,  most  certainly  it  is. 
80  long  as  the  Church  regards  him  as  a  member 
and  a  minister,  so  long,  for  all  official  purposes, 
he  is  a  member  and  a  minister,  and  a  want  of 
right  baptism  no  more  invalidates  his  official 
acts  performed  in  the  name  of  the  Church  and 
by  the  authority  of  the  Church  than  a  want  of 
right  faith  would  have  done.  The  Church  re- 
ceived him  in  her  ignorance,  supposing  him  to 
have  been  truly  baptized,  and  as  such  entrusted 
him  with  authority  to  administer  her  ordinances. 
When  she  discovers  her  mistake,  she  should 
correct  it  by  at  once  regarding  him  as  unbap- 
tized,  but  until  she  does,  he  is  an  authorized 
administrator.     So  in  the 

Fifth  Case,  or  that  wherein  a  man  destitute 
of  saving  faith,  it  may  be,  a  base  hypocrite,  or 
one  self-deceived.  An  anconverted  man  is  re- 
ceived by  the  Church  as  a  true  convert,  and 
elevated  to  the  ministry.  He  baptizes  scores 
or  hundreds,  and  at  length  falls  into  open  sin 
and  is  excluded.  Does  this  invalidate  the  bap- 
tisms administered  by  him  wdiile  he  remained  a 
minister  in  good  standing  ?  Not  at  all.  So 
long  as  he  was  a  member  and  a  minister,  his 
qfficicd  acts  were  valid  for  all  Church  purposes, 
whatever  his  secret  personal  character  before 
God  may  have  been.  The  Church  in  her  ig- 
norance "^believed  him   to    be   a   true  believer. 


EIGHT    CASES    FOR    APPLICATION.  261 

!^uch  he  professed  to  "be,  as  such  she  entrusted 
to  him  her  ordinances.  When  she  is  unde» 
ceived,  she  must  depose  and  exclude  him  ;  hut 
till  she  does  so,  his  official  acts  are  valid.  So 
long  as  she  regards  him  as  a  believe r,  he  is  for 
all  Church  purposes  to  he  so  regarded  by 
others. 

The  Sixth  Case  which  presents  itself  to 
our  mind,  is  one  in  which  a  Baptist  minister, 
and  a  good  and  pious  man,  has,  without  any- 
sufficient  fpvult  of  his,  been  excluded  from  the 
Church,  or  deposed  from  the  ministry,  and  yet 
goes  on  baptizing,  as  though  he  had  been  the 
subject  of  no  such  action.  Are  such  baptisms 
valid  ?  Clearly,  they  are  not.  The  validity  of 
the  baptism,  so  far  as  the  administrator  is  con- 
cerned, does  not  depend,  as  Ave  have  seen,  upon 
his  piety  or  upon  his  baptism,  but  upon  the 
aiithoritij  which  he  has  received,  directly  or  in- 
directly from  a  true  Church  of  baptized  believers 
to  administer  it.  He  could  take  no  such  au- 
thority with  him  out  of  the  Church,  and  no 
Baptist  Church  could  recognize  any  official  act 
of  his,  however  innocent  she  might  believe  him 
to  be,  unless  he  had  first  been  restored  to 
Church  membership,  and  again  authorized  to 
administer  the  ordinances  by  the  same  Church 
that  deposed  and  excluded  him,  or  by  some 
other  of  equal  authority  with  it  in  the  kingdom 
of  Christ. 

The   Seventh    Case,   is  where   a  baptism 


262  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMEKSI02-^'S. 

has  been  administeredj  as  in  tlie  case  of  Boger 
Williams,  by  one  not  baptized  or  not  author- 
ized by  a  true  Church  of  baptized  believers,  in 
consequence  of  some  alleged  necessity,  growing- 
out  of  a  supposed  impossibility  to  find  any  such 
Church,  or  minister   of  such  Church.     Some 
have  thought,  that  in  such  an  emergency,  the 
regular  law  of  baptism  may   be  set   aside,  and 
some  one  may  take  it  on  himself  to  begin  a  new 
series  of  administrations  without  authority  from 
any  Church.     But  it   seems  more  reasonable, 
that  when  an  ordinance  cannot  be  observed  as 
it  was  commanded^  observance  of  it  is  not  re- 
quired.    Obedience  to   positive  enactments  is 
doing  just  what  is  commanded.,  just  as  it  is  com- 
manded to  be  done,  and  nothing  more  or  less. 
We  may  not  substitute  or  change  God's  ordi- 
nances.    If  we  cannot  obey,  we  are  not  required 
to  obey.     A  Jew,  or  a  family  of  Jews,  cast  on  a 
desert  island,  might  earnestly  desire  to  keep  the 
Passover,  but  if  they  had  no  lamh^  they  would 
not  be  required  to  offer  a  goat,  or  a  serpent,  or 
any  thing  living  which  they  might  find  upon  the 
island,  in  its  place.     They   could    only  observe 
the  Lord's  Passover  by  offering  a  onale  lamb 
without  spot  or  blemish,  and  of  a  certain  age. 
80  in  regard  to  baptism  ;  if  circumstances  ren- 
der it  impossible  to  do   what   God  commands, 
we  are  simply  to  leave  it  undone,    until  in  His 
providence  the  way  is  opened  for  its  right  per- 
formance.    We  are  not  to  substitute  somethinpj 


EIGHT    CASES    FOR    APPLICATION.  263 

else  wliicli  we  can  do,  but  wliich  be  bas  7iot  re- 
quired. If  Grod  bas  appointed  or  limited  tbe 
administrators  of  baptism,  tbereforc,  and  we 
cannot  find  snob  as  be  requires,  we  are  not  to 
l)ut  sucb  as  we  may  see  fit  to  employ  in  tbeir 
places.  Tbere  is,  bowever,  no  such  necessity  as 
we  are  speaking  of.  We  do  not  believe  tbere 
ever  bas  been.  A  little  trouble  and  delay 
would  bavc  at  any  time  secured  an  autborized 
administrator.  But,  whatever  may  bave  been 
true  of  otber  ages  and  otber  lands,  no  one  can 
now  claim  tliat  be  was  not  rigbtly  baptized  in 
this  country  for  want  of  a  Baptist  Church  to 
authorize,  and  a  Baptist  minister  to  confer  the 
ordinance. 

The  Eighth  Case — and  I  mention  it  only 
because  some  seem  to  bave  found  in  it  a  diffi- 
culty, is  this  :  If  the  action  of  a  Church  is  ne- 
cessary to  authorize  one  to  confer  baptism,  how 
can  baptism  be  conferred  by  our  missionaries  in 
foreign  lands,  or  by  our  Evangelists  in  our  own.^ 
We  answer,  simply  on  the  ground  that  the 
Church  in  ordaining,  or  setting  one  apart  to  tbe 
missionary  work,  or  even  to  the  work  of  a  min- 
ister, is  understood  to  confer  authority  to  ad- 
minister the  ordinances  wherever  there  may  be 
occasion  for  doing  so.  The  missionary  is  acting 
by  the  authority  conferred  upon  him  by  the 
Church  who  sends  him,  and  to  her  he  is  ame- 
nable for  his  official  and  Christian  conduct. 
Conventions,  Associations,  Missionary  Boards, 


264  PEDOBAPTIST  IMMERSIONS. 

and  the  like,  may  make  provision  for  nis  sup- 
port and  comfort  in  his  work,  but  they  can  give 
him  no  authority  to  preach  or  to  baptize,  nor 
can  they  come  between  the  Church  and  the 
minister  to  interfere  with  the  rights  which  the 
Church  has  conferred.  When  the  Church 
chooses,  and  sets  him  apart  by  ordniation  to 
the  work  of  a  pastor  or  Evangelist,  she  em- 
powers him  in  her  behalf  to  ''go  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost. 

These  cases,  v/e  think,  will  either  include  or 
parallel  all  that  are  likely  to  come  before  any 
Church,  We  do  not  give  our  opinion  as  hav- 
ing any,  even  the  very  slightest  authority  over 
the  brethren.  Grod  forbid.  We  simply  state 
what,  after  a  careful  investigation'  of  the  sub- 
ject, we  think  to  be  the  teaching  of  the  Word 
of  God.  We  have  often  been  in  error,  and  we 
ask  no  one  to  take  our  vv^ord  or  our  opinion  in 
these  decisions,  or  in  anything  ;  but  let  each 
one  for  himself  "  search  the  Scrijjtures/'  to  see 
whether  these  things  are  so.  By  them,  and  by 
them  alone,  each  Church  of  Christ  must  be  de- 
termined. If  we  have  failed  to  find  their  mean- 
ing, it  is  not  for  want  of  an  honest  and  earnest 
desire,  nor  for  want  of  careful  and  patient  study. 
But  yet  we  do  not  claim  to  be  the  leader  or  the 
guide,  but  only  the  helper  of  our  brethren  in 
their  attempts  to  understand  the  truth. 

The  general  rule  to  which  our  investigations 


EIGHT    CASES    FOR    APPLICATION.  26*5 

as  liere  laid  dowOj  have  driven  us,  is  tliis  :  A 
baptism  is  lawful  and  valid  when  it  is  conferred 
upon  a  believer  in  Christ  by  an  administrator  ap- 
pointed by  a  true  Church  of  baptized  believers. 
If  there  are  any  other  cases  differing  materially 
from  those  mentioned  above,  the  application  of 
this  rule  will  probably  enable  any  one  to  decide 
them  for  himself. 


206  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 


CHAPTER  X. 

SOME  OTHER  PRACTICAL    QUESTIONS  PERTAINING 
TO    CHURCH    DUTIES. 

Question  First. — This  we  state  substan- 
tially in  the  language  of  a  correspondent  in 
Virginia. 

Query.  Shall  a  consistent  Baptist  continue 
to  fellowship  a  Church  which  receives  Methodist 
immersed  believers  without  baptizing  them? 
and  if  not,  what  course  must  he  pursue? 

The  question  is  a  ver}^  natural  one,  and  more 
difficult  to  answer  than  might  at  first  glance 
appear.  ■  The  duty  of  the  Church  is  plain.  She 
ought  not  to  receive  such  subjects  ;  but  if  a 
Church  falls  into  some  error  of  doctrine  or  prac- 
tice, shall  any  one  member  set  up  his  opinion, 
against  that  of  the  assembly?  Certainly  he 
may,  and  give  them  kindly  and  in  brotherly 
love,  the  reasons  for  his  dissent.  If  the  Church 
proposes  to  receive  such  a  subject,  every  mem- 
ber who  disapproves  should  present  his  objec- 
tions, he  should  vote  agaist  it,  and  then  if  over- 
ruled, he  may  ask  leave  to  record  his  pro- 
test on  the  Church  records  with  a  brief  state- 


PRACTICAL    QUESTIONS.  267 

ment  of  his  reasons.  Thus  far  he  surely  may 
go,  and  no  one  can  find  occasion  of  offence. 
But  as  the  reception  of  such  an  unhaptized 
candidate  through  the  error  or  ignorance  of  the 
Church,  would  no  more  destroy  its  claims  to  he 
a  true  Church  of  Christ,  than  the  reception  of 
an  unbeliever  through  a  similar  mistake  would 
do  it,  we  do  not  see  in  the  act  any  thing  which 
calls  for  a  disfellowshipping  of  the  Church  as  a 
true  Church  of  Christ.  The  brother  who  dis- 
approves of  her  course,  may  remain  in  her  and 
lift  his  voice  for  the  whole  truth  until  his 
brethren  shall  be  convinced,  or  until  he  can  find 
some  other  Church  convenient  to  him  with 
which  he  can  more  perfectly  coincide.  Few,  if 
any,  Baptist  Churches,  will  be  willing  to  disre- 
gard a  kind  but  firm  and  persistent  protest  from 
one  who  is  a  good  and  consistent  member,  for 
the  sake  of  pleasing  or  securing  the  membership 
of  one  not  a  member,  and  who  was  not  yet  suf- 
ficiently instructed  to  know  that  baptism  con- 
ferred without  authority  from  Christ,  is  not 
Christ's  baptism,  and  that  Christ  conferred  no 
authority  to  baptize  believers  upon  any  but  those 
who  had  themselves  been  baptized  as  believers. 

Question  Second. — OugJd  consistent  Bap- 
tist churches  to  continue  to  felloiuship  as  true 
churches  those  ivhich  persist  in  receiving  these 
miatdhojnzed  immersions  as  true  and  valid  hop- 
tism  ? 

The  decision  of  this  question  depends  upon 


268  PEDOBAPTIST    IMMERSIONS. 

another,  and  tliat  is  whether  this  is  such  an 
error  in  faith  or  practice  as  vitiates  their  claim 
to  be  accounted  true  and  lawful  churches  of 
Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  Scriptures.  If 
they  are  true  churches,  we  should,  it  seems  to 
us,  continue  to  fellowship  them  as  such,  hut 
protest  against  their  error,  and  with  kind- 
ness and  j)atience  w^ait  for  the  time  which  will 
probably  soon  come  wdien  we  shall  all  see  "eye 
to  eye.'' 

But,  as  an  honest  mistake  in  any  church  as 
to  wdiether  an  applicant  for  membership  had 
truly  believed  would  not  unchurch  the  body, 
so  an  honest  mistake  as  to  whether  one  had 
been  baptized  w^ould  not  vitiate  its  claims  to 
be  a  church.  The  utmost  that  other  churches 
need  to  do  is  to  adopt  the  means  to  make  their 
own  sentiments  knowm,  and  publicly  protest 
against  such  innovations  upon  the  requirements 
of  God's  Word  and  the  practice  of  the  first 
churches.  Each  Church  is  by  the  Lord  consti- 
tuted sole  judge  of  who  shall  be  its  members, 
and  of  all  matters  relating  to  its  internal  polity 
and  discipline.  To  its  own  Master  it  standeth 
or  falleth.  Let  each  Church,  therefore,  be 
careful  for  itself  to  conform  to  the  teaching  of 
the  Word,  and  leave  its  sisters  in  peace  to  do 
the  same.  If  w^e  disagree  about  these  teachings, 
let  us  not  quarrel  like  enemies,  anxious  to  cri- 
minate each  other  ;  but,  in  love,  let  us  bear 
eacli   other's   burdens — in    brotherly  affection, 


PRACTICAL    QUESTIO:nS.  269 

point  out  each  other's  faults — and  by  the  faith- 
ful witnessing  for  the  truth,  we  will  soon  drive 
out  all  error.  We  have  been  too  ready  to  di- 
vide and  too  slow  to  unite.  Nothing  should  be 
made  the  ground  of  disfellowship  towards  any 
brother  which  does  not  disqualify  him  to  be  a 
good  member  of  a  Baptist  Church,  and  nothing 
should  be  made  the  ground  of  disfellowshij)  to- 
wards a  sister  Church  which  does  not  impeach 
her  claims  to  be  a  true  Church  of  Jesus  Christ, 
holding  the  faith,  having  the  ordinances,  the 
character  of  membership,  and  the  organization 
which  characterized  the  Jerusalem  pattern. 
With  less  than  this  she  is  not  a  Church  of 
Christ,  and  more  than  this  we  need  not  ask. 
Let  us  seek  for  union,  not  by  complaining  of 
others,  but  by  seeking  for  ourselves,  and  pro- 
claiming abroad  the  whole  Truth  of  God.  We 
need  not  compromise  the  Truth — we  need  not 
conceal  it.  We  need  not,  nay  we  must  not 
hesitate  to  fully  carry  it  out  in  all  our  practice. 
But  we  need  be  busy  in  searching  out  our 
neighbors'  faults  or  failings.  We  are  not  calledt 
upon  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  those  who  chance 
to  see  things  in  a  light  differing  somewhat  from 
that  which  guides  our  action.  Let  us  commend 
the  right  by  our  own  obedience.  Let  us  con- 
demn the  vrrong  by  our  own  right-doing,  and 
not  by  finding  fault  with  others  who  are  doubt- 
less as  honest  and  as  desirous  to  do  right  as  we 
are,  but  have  not  yet  been  able  to  find  the  per- 


270  PEDOBAPTIST    IMJIERSIONS. 

feet  path  of  entire  conformity  to  the  exact  iv- 
quirements  of  our  blessed  Lord.  He  will  bles.s 
the  example  of  the  careful  and  consistent  fol- 
lowers of  His  Word  to  the  correction  of  those 
who  have  been  too  easily  led  by  a  false  charity, 
not  merely  to  pity  but  practically  to  approve 
the  errors  into  which  so  many  who  bear  the 
name  of  Christ  have  fallen.  The  Lord  hasten 
the  time  when  all  who  love  him  shall  rejoice  to- 
gether m  complete  obedience  to  all  the  outioard 
as  well  as  all  the  inward  requirements  of  the 
glorious  Grospel  of  the  blessed  God, 


THE    EJs'P. 


DATE  DUE 

k 

..^-.^ 

m 

os^ 

'f  innn 

"T 

0   lUUo 

v) 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

